^. * ■ 









-J sj ■ 



o 



tt • 



^ 







^ * • » o *^ 












R « 



4P' C 











.0^ o 






'^t.o^ f 










b-i ^^ 





'^-^^ 







^ F 























fl « o op ^ J^ 4^f . « « O^ 21^ 






^^ CT 6 e * • ♦ ^ 







^sr^^ 







VI ^ .aft ^t ^*^ J^ '•^ ^^^^^^rjfrli t\A vff b. ^ 







THE 



GRAVES-DITZLER 



OR, 



j: 



lEAT UARROLLTON 



EBATP 



JJ 



ON 



The Mode Of Baptism, 
Infant Baptism, 
Church of Christ, 



The Lord's Supper, 
Believers' Baptism, 

Final Perseverance of Saints, 



between 



J. R. Graves, LL. D., and Jacob Ditzler, D D. 



stereotyped by Soathem Baptist Publication Society. 



fifth thousand. 



.^'0, 



MEMPHIS, TENN- 
Published by the Southern Baptist Publication Society. 

1876 









Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1876, by 

SOUTHEIilsr BAPTIST PXJBLICATIOlSr SOCIETY. 

In the office of the Librarian of Congress, at Washington, D. C. 



Memphis, Tenn., ) 

Feb. 15th, 1876. f 

We, the parties to the Debate embraced in the present volume, hereby 
declare that we have read and corrected the whole work, which is now a 
faithful transcript of what we said in the discussion at Carrollton, Mo. 

J. R. GRAVES. 

J. DITZLER. 



PUBLISHER'S INTRODUCTION. 

Oral debate is the pride and glory of our advanced civilization. This is 
admitted by all. It is a singular fact, therefore, that in this country, where 
the people boast of a free press and public discussion as the grandest tro- 
phies of liberty, there should still be some who have a deep-seated preju-. 
dice against reUgious controversy. It is confessed that there are great 
denominational issues upon which men are not agreed. These issues, all 
must know, are pregnant with mighty interests. We assume, therefore, 
that the earnest and prayerful discussion of denominational differences 
can but result in good. That our view is not singular, is manifest from the 
following quotations : ' 'Some are disposed to deprecate all such discussions, 
* * * * under the head of unprofitable controversy. That 
it is controversy, I admit ; that it is unprofitable controversy, I deny. Dr. 
Wardlaw's Inf. Bap., page 1. The same distinguished author says, "Con- 
troversy is not a worli from which any well constituted mind should 
shrink. If it be conducted in the spirit of the Master whom we serve, it 
is an important and indispensable means of eliciting truth." Ch. Lee. 
page 6. 

Dr. J. Buchanan. — "Many sincere christians dislike controversy, and, 
so fai from engaging in it themselves, can scarcely allow that others 
should. An enlarged view of the history of the christian church might 
serve to convince such persons. * •- * That error, when it does 
appear, should be met by a bold exhibition of truth, seems to be one of 
the first duties the church owes to her divine head." Disc, on Nat. Rel. 
Est., pages 3, 4. "It is right that everyone should express his deep and 
honest convictions in charity. Dr. J. Gumming." Sab. Eve. Rea. on 
Matt. III. Such are the views of calm and profound thinkers ; views to 
which we call the attention of such as are averse to discussion, and hastily 
declare that it is not onlj^ productive of no good, but fuU of harmful influ- 
ences. 

Among the ancients, before the small or great assemblies, this was almost 
the only mode of investigation employed. The orator then performed 
much the same service for the people which the newspaper now does. 
Politics, philosophy and religion were all alike made the subject of dis- 
cussion. The people rejoiced in the privileges of public debate. One 



6 Puclisiier's Introduction. 

might think there was less need of debate now than in the past. News- 
papers without number, and with the regularity of each bright morning, 
visit the homes of men. And there is no end to the production of boots. 
But the truth is that, as the earth is filled with knowledge, through these 
and other instrumentalities, pubUc speakers multiply, and there seems to 
be an enlarged and legitimate demand for public disputation. The in- 
creased Ught but serves to define more sharply the differences between 
men. 

The guises of error disappearing before the light, its darkness and de- 
formity are made manifest, while truth shines with its native and per- 
fect splendor. These things true, there is a constant and inevitable ten- 
dency to discussion. And since it is scarcely possible, and to thinking 
men, not at all desirable to avoid it, we are made to wonder that persons 
can be found who are opposed to it. A law which interfered with the 
liberty of the seculai' press of our land, or which prevented the pubhc dis- 
cussion of great political issues, would arouse the hostility of the whole 
nation. The least abridgment of this political liberty would be regarded, 
even by those who stand opposed to the public discussion of theological 
questions, as the gravest national calamity. But heaven is higher than 
earth ; and as it is impossible to measure the gap between these, there is 
IK) way to estimate the transcendent importance of religious as compared 
with political questions. The man, therefore, who favors the free dis- 
cussion of secular questions, could not, it seems to us, with any consider- 
able show of reason, oppose the discussion of matters infinitely more im- 
portant. 

And we venture the opinion that there is danger of periodical stagna- 
tion. War and much precious blood are the price paid for national 
greatness. Civilization reaches its highest development only after strag- 
gling up through the dust and darkness of battle. Repose bruigs along 
with it decay and ruin. It is much the same w^ay in the rehgious world. 
An age of denominational repose is a period of decay. This is well illus- 
trated in the history of the past. On the contrary^ in the ages when the 
conflict between light and darkness has been the most severe, and when 
the sword and the ax have been freely employed, it was the boast of 
pious men that the very blood of the martyred saints was the seed of the 
church. The Great One has provided for constant agitation in the physi- 
cal world. There is no rest throughout the realm of nature. And in ad- 
dition to the universal activity of all the elements, we have great periodi- 
cal con\^ilsions. The God of nature needs the storm to purify the world. 
The onward march of Christianity, in the early centuries, was but the 



Publisher's Introduction. 7 

progress of earnest and universal controversy. It was only when truth 
veiled her face, and retired from the conflict, that the dark ages, like a 
black and starless night, settled down on the whole earth. When she 
came forth again like the morning which wakes everything into life, she 
moved the nations with her power. Error was made forbidding by be- 
ing contrasted with truth. But this was not all. A fierce and fearful 
war was made against every error and evil practice. And this struggle, 
this world-wide controversy of the Sixteenth Century resulted, as all con- 
fess, in a general reformation. We think, that in the period following 
our great revolution, the churches have been disposed to avoid a discus- 
sion of doctrinal diflerences. And those who shrink from the pubUc dis- 
cussion of truth, will be silent in the social circle ; and becoming cowards, 
as they certainly will, they will not hesitate to surrender the strongholds 
of denominational power. In the conflict between truth and falsehood, 
pious men cannot afford to be silent. Aggression is a denominational 
necessity. Battle is the law of life. And nothing less than triumph can 
secm^e a church against the possibflity of decay. The man who makes 
himself famfliar with these facts, who feels the shock of the crashing 
thunderbolt or the tread of the storm, and who knows what blessings 
have sprung from the great discussions of the past, can hardly doubt 
that the present debate will be fruitful of much good. 

If another reason is needed in support of public discussions and for the 
presentation of this volume, it may be found in the life and writings of 
the great Apostle to the Gentiles. PauPs whole life was but a single 
struggle. With his overwhelming logic, profound learning and great soul, 
he went right out into the front of the battle. He confronted the Jew with 
weapons drawn from the Bible, and contended grandly for the divinity of 
Christ ; confounded the Ephesians with unanswerable arguments ; over- 
whelmed the Athenians with his mighty logic ; triumphed over the Cor- 
inthians in a profound and glorious argument on the resurrection ; made 
the world, as well as individual monarchs, tremble with the weight of his 
splendid argumentation. He never threw aside the helmet or shield, and 
never laid down the sword. Panoplied in the armor of God, he was 
always girded and ready for the conflict — always in the battle. He went 
down at last in the strife, and gave up his life on the block. But as he 
surveyed his past life, he could truly say, "I have fought a good fight," 
Buch was the life of Paul. And we conclude that the man who foUows 
In the line of duty as illustrated in the hfe of this great teacher of rehgion 
wUl not greatly err. Such are our convictions in regard to the propriety 
of public discussions. 



8 Publisher's Introduction. 

The reader will not think it a strange thing, with these facts before him, 
that we felt a deep and curious interest in the debate embodied in this book. 
The Baptist and Methodist denominations are almost whoUy unlike each 
other in polity and doctrine. Their views in regard to the ordinances and 
certain doctrinal points are directly antagonistic. And the opposing prac- 
tices and principles of the two denominations can but clash against each 
other. This necessary conflict found expression in a challenge by the M. 
E. church at CarroUton, to discuss certain questions and great cardinal 
doctrines about which the two denominations are not agreed. The Bap- 
tist church at Carrollton accepted the challenge. Dr. J. Ditzler, a learned 
and representative man, was chosen to conduct the debate on the part of 
the Methodists. Dr. Graves, whose reputation is not confined to a single 
continent, was selected to represent the Baptists. With such men as par- 
ties to the debate, and with a prospect of thoroughly discussing certain 
important points of doctrine and practice about which for centm'ies there 
had been a conflict of opinion in the great religious bodies of Em'ope and 
America, there was felt, asmight have been expected, a very deep and gen- 
eral interest. It was the conviction of many that it would be second to 
HO debate of the kind ever held on the continent. It was evident from 
the interest the press took in the matter, that the whole country was 
deeply concerned as to the result. It was claimed by both parties to this 
great conflict, that their chosen champions would be able tx) present the 
very best arguments in support of their peculiar views. 

With aU these facts before us, the Society felt justified in making 
arrangements to report, at great expense, the whole discussion. This we 
have done. And in order that there might be no doubt as to the fact that 
the authors are truly represented, we have paid Dr. Ditzler $500.00 to cor- 
rect the MSS. of our reporter, and read the proof as the work went 
through the press. Dr. Graves has done the same work free of charge. 
So the reader may be sure that, in the pages of this book, the speakers are 
fairly reported. And on the Mode of Baptism, Infant Baptism, the 
Church of Christ, Believer's Baptism and Final Perseverance, both parties 
have presented the best and clearest evidences of their faith. 

We now submit the Great Debate to the reading public, in the hope that 
it may do good. We know that God can use it for His own glory. 
Should men be brought to the truth, and be made to love it and labor 
more for its advancement, then we shaU be satisfied. 

W. D. MAYFIELD, 
Sec. S. B. P. Society. 



ADDRESS 

OF 

COL. JOHN B. HALE. 

At ten o'clock, the meeting was called to order by Col. 
John B. Hale, the President, who, after prayer by the Rev. 
J. H. Pritchett, opened the proceedings with the following 
address : 

Ladies and Gentlemen: — The preliminaries having been 
all satisfactorily arranged, the debate between the two distin- 
guished Divines now present as representatives of the Metho- 
dist and Baptist denominations respectively, will be opened in 
a few minutes by Dr. Graves, who will maintain the affirma- 
tive of the first proposition, which reads as follows : 

Immersion in Water is the act which Christ Commanded 
His Apostles to Perform for Christian Baptism. 

Dr. Graves' opening speech will be one hour long, and at 
its conclusion. Dr. Ditzler will follow on the opposite side in a 
speech of the same length. Certain rules of order have been 
adopted and will be strictly enforced by the Moderators, and 
among other things, all manifestations of approval or disap- 
jirobation on the part of the auditory, are strictly interdic- 
ted, and I am sure this prohibition will be religiously observed 
by the intelligent assemblies that this interesting occasion will 
bring together from time to time, during the progress of this 
discussion. 

And I desire further to state, on the part of the Moderators, 
that in accepting a responsibility which they might have other- 
wise been reluctant to incur, they have only yielded to a sense 
of duty, and been influenced by a desire to facilitate and pro- 
mote the success of a proceeding which they trust may con- 
tribute to the furtherance of the cause and interests of truth; 
a like sentiment they are persuaded, influences this large and 
intelligent audience, whose attendance here may be accepted 



lo Address of Col. John B. Hale. 

as an expression of their desire to learn, to know, and to prac- 
tice the truth, thus furnishing a practical exemplification of 
one of the distinctive characteristics of a true Christian. 

The rules of order will now be read to you by the Rev. J. 
H. Pritchett, of Fayette. 

The disputants agree to adopt as "rules of decorum" those 
found in Hedges' Logic, p. 159, to-wit : 

Rule 1. The terms in which the question in debate is expressed, and 
the point at issue, should be clearly defined, that there could be no mis- 
understanding respecting them. 

RLT.E 2. The parties should mutually consider each other as standing 
on a footing of equahty, in respect to the subject in debate. Each should 
regard the other as possessing equal talents, knowledge, and a desire for 
truth with himself; and that it is possible, therefore, that he may be in 
the wrong, and his adversary in the right. 

Rule 3. All expressions which are unmeaning, or without effect in 
regard to the subject in debate, should be strictly avoided. 

Rule 4. Personal reflections on an adversary should, in no instance, be 
indulged. 

Rule 5. The consequences of anj^ doctrine are not to be charged on 
him who maintains it, unless he expressly avows them. 

Rule 6. As truth, and not victory, is the professed object of contro- 
versy, whatever proofs may be advanced, on either side, should be exam- 
ined with fairness and candor ; and any attempt to answer an adversary 
by acts of sophistry, or to lessen the force of his reasoning by wit, cavil- 
ing or ridicule, is a violation of the rules of honorable controversy. 

[Signed] J. R. GRAVES. 
J. DITZLER 

The rules of order having been read. Col. Hale proceeded : 
It may be proper for me to say that by the mutual agreement 
of the disputants, the opening statements, on either side, will 
be read. 

ISTow, if in acting out a new and unaccustomed role, I should 
betray any nervous trepidation, you will make for me the 
apolog}^ pleaded by the young preacher in like circumstances : 
I am not used to it — custom and habit have not yet inured me 
to so severe a test on my modesty. 



THE 



GREAT CARROLLTON DEBATE. 



FIRST PROPOSITION: 

IMMERSION IN WATER IS THE ACT WHICH CHRIST COMMANDED 
HIS APOSTLES TO PERFORM FOR CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

DR. GRAVES Affirms. 
DR. DITZLER Denies. 



FIRST DA Y— Monday, 10 o'clooh 



[Dr. Graves' Opening Speech.] 

Mr. President : — I must be permitted to say that I heartily 
appreciate the distinguished honor put upon me by my friends 
here in Carrollton, by selecting me as their mouthpiece and 
representative on this occasion. Challenged as they were by 
the respectable denomination of Methodists in this place, to 
discuss some of the chief questions at issue between that body 
and themselves, their conduct, had they declined the contest, 
might have been interpreted as a confession of weakness or as 
indifference to the interests of truth, and have subjected them 
to the imputation of pusillanimity. These considerations, 
moreover, were enhanced by the fact that it was generally 
understood that the act of the local body, here at Carrollton, 
had the sanction of the denomination at large in the State of 
Missouri, as well as of the Methodist Bishops South. When 
selected, therefore, to maintain, as their representative, the 
principles dear alike to them and me as being an integral part 
of the gospel of Christ, and to discuss them with a represen- 



12 



The Great Carrollton Dei^ate. 



tative man like my friend, Elder Ditzler, who, by his learning 
and ability, is pre-eminently qualified to make the best defence 
which the errors he champions are susceptible of, I promptly 
accepted the gage of conflict. 

I am grateful for the distinguished privilege of standing up in 
the midst of this intelligent community, and in the very heart 
of this great State and of the Great West, to renew the con- 
flict that was commenced, not 300, but 1575 years ago, when 
my denominational ancestors with the gloom of the dungeon, 
the flames of martyrdom and the terrors of expatriation 
threatening, protested against the changes and innovations 
that ambitious and impious prelates and heresiarchs were then 
commencing to foist into the practice and observance of the 
church. I. but renew here, this day, tbe conflict of the ages 
— I but re-utter the testimony of all the holy martyrs, by 
reaflirming, as I do, that 

1. All that Christ has required of the people to believe for 
salvation, and all that he has enjoined upon them to observe 
for obedience, he has taught so plainly in his word that the 
common people, without the assistance of priest or rabbi, can 
understand without a doubt, and may obey without a hesitation. 
And that other axiom, 

2. Whatever Christ has appointed, man may not change in 

the least by substitution, adding to or taking from, without 

imperiling his soul's salvation. Eevelations xxii. 18, 19 : 

"For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy 
of this book, if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto 
him the plagues that are written in this book ; and if any man shall take 
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away 
his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the 
things which are written in this book." 

Finally, Mr. President, I am gratified in being permitted to 
meet so reputable a man and scholar as Mr. Ditzler, a gentle- 
man who stands forth as pre-eminently the ablest public 
defender of the principles and practices of American Method- 
ism. If he is unable to defend its claims to Scriptural au- 
thority for its doctrines and practices beyond all doubt, then 
the most sanguine Methodist ought not to believe that it can 
be done by mortal man, nor do I believe it can; and surely if 



Mode of Baptism. 13 

ihe cannot successfully overthrow the positions of Baptists, 
which he has so confidently undertaken to do in this discus- 
sion, then Methodists and the world have a right to conclude 
that no Hving man can overthrow them. But should I fail, in 
this conflict, ray brethren know there are scores of abler 
leaders, who have borne our banner with honor upon the high 
■places of the field, standing ready to seize it should it be 
stricken from my feeble hand ere one, as yet, unsullied fold 
of it shall trail the dust. 

, Mr. Piesident, Ladies and Gentlemen, my opponent and 
myself have not met here as mere combatants, bared ecclesiasti- 
cal gladiators, to engage in a trial of personal prowess before 
you. The questions to be settled are not, which of the two is 
the superior in mental acumen or scholarly qualifications, or 
which is the more dexterous in polemical "thrust and fence;" 
but oneof infinitely higher moment calls us all together, and 
one that afiects our eternal well-being, viz: what does Christ, 
in his word, require us to do in order to obey him, and thus 
.meet his "well done, good and faithful servants?" A consid- 
eration like this should be sufficient to cause you to forget the 
persons and reputations of your representatives, and all 
denominational and partisan considerations, and bend every 
power of your mind to the one inquiry, "what is the truth?" 
determined to accept it wherever it may lead you. I know 
the motive that if. spires me upon this occasion, and the Eye 
that is lookiiig into my inmost heart, and that to Him, and 
not to this congregation, must I look for my enduring praise. 
I shall endeavor to conduct this debate on my part in the spirit 
of an earnest Christian, and of fidelity to Christ. I shall do 
all in my power to unsting this controversy — to speak the 
truth in love, and in the love of it — and in the noble strife of 
solid facts and sound reasoning, it will be my ambition to 
come off victorious. The prayer of my heart is, that if I am 
in error upon any of these questions, I may be enlightened 
and converted to the truth, and that my opponent, in error, 
as I now think he is, and multitudes of his brethren, may be 
led by the Holy Spirit into the truth, through the influence 
of this discussion. - 



14 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Reading a speech in a recently published debate, my eye 

fell upon this statement by one of the disputants : 

"I may announce to the audience that we shall spend to-day and half 
of to-morrow, if not more, before any ordinary hearer or reader will un- 
derstand anything about what we are saying." Wilkes and Ditzler 
Debate, p. 4^1. 

And that published debate is before the public, and I have 
no conviction that a half dozen ordinary readers ever will 
understand anything about what they said, and consequently, 
cannot be benefitted by it. j^ovv, I am free to say here, that 
such a discussion and such a book it is not my intention to have 
any voice or hand in making, for there is no place for it. 
Scholars certainly do not want such books, nor do they read 
them; and the common readers cannot understand them; and 
what purpose under heaven do they serve but as a stage upon 
which to display the classical lore of the disputants — or lack of 
it — to excite the wonder of partisan crowds that are wholly 
unable to judge of the merit of it? The world never, did 
need such a discussion, it certainly does not need it now. If I 
speak, not for one (iaj/, but for one minute^ in this discussion, so 
that the ordinary hearer, or the intelligent youth of sixteen, 
does not understand me, I shall feel that I owe him an apology 
for imposing upon him, and should ask forgiveness of Him 
who called me by his grace to teach the people. But what 
profit if I speak in an unknoivn tongue, or above their compre- 
hension? Let this explain why I shall, throughout, adhere so 
closely to the text of God's word, and to the literal and obvi- 
ous construction and meaning of it, rather than to display my 
acquaintance with a few words in many foreign tongues to 
appear learned in your eye. It is with the word of God we have 
to do, and it is with the word, as given us by the Holy Spirit 
in the Greek language, we have to do. Grant the Savior may 
have spoken in Hebrew, or Syriac, or Chinese, it matters not 
to us, nor does it, in the least, afi*ect the language of his com- 
mands or lielp us to understand them. 

The Holy Spirit knew what Christ said, and chose the lan- 
guage in which to communicate his sayings to the world, 
infallibly guided the evangelists, not only as to what they 
should say, but selected the very words in which they should 



Mode of Baptism. 15 

say it. It is, as you can all see, with their words in the lanqimge 
in which they wrote, that we have to do, and not with any other 
language, only incidentally; to make other languages, there- 
fore, prominent in this discussion, must be accounted in very 
bad taste as well as unscholarly, for a true scholar uses the 
classics as God does miracles, never unnecessarily. 

In justice to myself I feel that an explanation is due to the 
public for the very imperfect preparation I have made for this 
discussion. The few weeks I had allotted to it have been 
spent in bed, delirious with fever; or in the sick-room, too 
enfeebled to think, or under the influence of medicine; and 
much that I have written has been done when I was alternat- 
ing between arctic rigors and worse than tropical heats, and 
the congestion that has generally attended these attacks in our 
State, falling upon the lungs or brain and often terminating, 
fatally, fell upon my larynx, seriously affecting my voice, nor 
has it, for a month past, yielded to the most effective remedies; 
and, unless the prayers of my brethren prevail with Him who 
can overrule all things, I have no reason to believe that, re- 
duced as I am physicall}^, I can long endure the unusual 
demands this debate will make upon both voice and strength. 
But touching this question. 

We have met here to-day to discuss this proposition, viz : 

Immersion is tlie Act which Christ Commanded for Baptism. 

That it is important for us to know the specific duty 
Christ commanded us to do, no one will deny. It is as import- 
ant as it is to obey Christ. To do something different through 
ignorance, willful or willing, involves the soul in sin and posi- 
tive transgression, and manifests a spirit in rebellion to Christ. 
To say that none but the most learned, and only a very small 
minority of them, have, after 1875 years, discovered the true 
meaning of Christ when he issued the command, is to impugn 
his wisdom, yea, to blaspheme his character as a law-giver. 
Unless Christ and his inspired apostles did use a word clearly 
and specifically indicating the act, that every man, and woman, 
and responsible child of the Greek — speaking nations could 
understand without the assistance of a scholar, then the 
command was not addressed to them, or binding upon them, 



1 6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and a failure to ohej it conld have been no sin. Unless Christ 
and his apostles used a term, the import of which could be 
easily, clearly, and undoubtedly understood by the scholars of 
all nations, so as to enable them to make correct versions of 
the Scriptures into all tongaes, then the Scriptures were not 
designed for any other people than the Greeks and Jews. 

^ow, it is admitted that Christ in instituting Christian Bap- 
tism selected from the copious language of the Greeks, that, 
unlike our own or any other known tongue, has not only a 
word for every idea, but for the slightest distinctions and 
nicest shades of ideas — ^I say it is admitted that Christ, out 
of such a language, selected but one word to denote the 
act that he commanded to be performed, and the evangelists 
and apostles never used but one simple w^ord, and that word 
is baptidzo. And this is the only word we have to do with 
in discussing this proposition. As this act is, like repent- 
ance, enjoined and binding upon all, every accountable being 
however young, can as easily understand it — taken in connec- 
tion with the examples given — without a scholar's assistance 
as he can the prior duties of repentance toward God and faith 
in Christ, and the man or angel that teaches otherwise destroys 
man's faith in the Bible, as well as man's own individuality in 
religion. 

I here affirm, fearless of successful contradiction, that the 
term, baptidzo is as easily defined as any other simple verb in 
the Greek language — as the verb edoo, to e&t, pinoo, to drink 
or pneoo, to breathe the vital air. 

Mr. President, this discussion is a reflection upon Christ, or 
upon Christian scholars; it is a reproach to the law-giver, or 
to those who say his law is couched in terms that cannot be 
undoubtedly understood by even the best scholars of earth; 
so obscure and ambiguous that Christ's disciples are driven 
into differences of opinion, and consequently into sects and 
divisions. As a friend of Christ and Christianity, I lift up my 
voice to-day for Christ. He is not responsible for any mis- 
understanding among scholars and ministers, for these have 
(wiginated the divisions and misunderstandings among the 
common people. No man ever spake like Plim, and no law- 



Mode of Baptism. 17 

giver ever used terms so simple, or so easy to be understood 
by the common people, as the Law-giver of Nazareth. To 
say that the unlettered millions of those who used the Greek 
hmguage in the days of Christ and his apostles, did not under- 
stand the specific act Christ commanded, when he or his apos- 
tles used the term baptidzo, is either to release them from 
obeying it on the one hand, or to establish the iniquitous 
dogma of the Eomish apostasy on the other — i. e., that it was 
not designed for the common people to read the word of God 
and interpret it for themselves — the priest alone is to read 
such portions as he deemis proper, and to interpret them to the 
people; and more, that even the priest must have the inspira- 
tion of heaven to ascertain the meaning of the simplest passages 
of Scripture — so occult their meaning! 

Bat it is to speak against Christ, to release them from obey- 
ing Christ; and it is rejecting Christ as an authoritative teacher 
and law-giver, to turn the people over into the hands of schol- 
ars, priests, and ministers to learn what to believe or what to 
do to obey him. The inspired Scriptures are to us everything 
or nothing. If the faith that unites us to Christ, and the act 
in and by w^hich we profess that faith, cannot be undoubtedly 
understood by the common millions, who understood the Greek 
language, and by all the common unlettered millions of earth, 
from faithful versions of the Greek, then the Scriptures were 
not intended for man, and the race of Adam is under no obli- 
gation to believe or to be baptized. Who will openly say this ? 
Therefore if I — if an inspired apostle — "if an angel from 
heaven" should stand here and tell you that this Word can.not 
be understood, even by all scholars, or that it has a different 
signification when used by Christ and his apostles than when 
used by Josephus or any other author, Greek or Jew, who 
wrote in Greek, living in the same century loith Christ and his 
ajwstles, let him be rejected by you as a false teacher and 
deceiver. 

The reproach of this discussion to-day, and of every other 
discussion upon this w^ord since man changed the action of 
baptism, rests, not upon the blessed Savior, but upon men, and 
they not the professed enemies, but the professed friends of 

2 



1 8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Christ; and shall I say it, the professed ministers of Clirist! 
And let me say a word in defence of the true and standard 
scholars of all ages, as a class, and for your sakes who hear 
me, to disabuse your minds at the outstart of a deep-seated 
misimpression. The strife among them for more than fifteen 
centuries, to their credit be it spoken, was not as to the signi- 
fication of baptidzo, but it was, first, whether the church had 
not the right, in extreme cases, to substitute a copious ove:'- 
pouring, {perfundere) and, ages after, even a sprinkling, (ran- 
tidzo) of the water upon the infant, or the subject, to save its 
soul from death, and then, in any and all cases, as a matter of 
taste or convenience. It has been but little over two hundred 
years since the question has been put into its present form, by a 
class of men — and a very small class of men, and they not the 
recognized and standard scholars of colleges and universities 
of earth, but the recognized polemics and professional contro- 
versialists of their respective sects, who generally treat with a 
sovereign contempt the learning of the ancients, and the most 
renowned scholarship of the universities of both hemis- 
pheres, and even the o^\\\\on% o^ the fathers and founders of 'their 
own sects — by men, I say, who will put their own unqualified 
assertions in opposition to the unanimous verdict of the schol- 
arship of all ages, as well as to the plain teachings of the word 
of God. To this complexion hath the controversy come at 
last in these corrupt times. 

There never was any dispute in the world for fifteen centu- 
ries as to the primary meaning of baptidzo, or the practice of 
the apostles or apostolic churches; there was none among the 
Greeks who spoke the language Christ and the evangelists 
used, and who have, from the fourth century, immersed, and 
have, to-day, no communion with the Latin Catholic church, 
because it has changed the original act. The Greek church 
calls the Latin " sprinkled, and not baptized Christians." 
Who can question that the Greeks understood the simplest 
term in their own language? There never was any disagree- 
ment among the Greek fathers, nor among the Latin fiithers, 
nor the historians or scholars of the Catholic church from the 
rise of that church in the seventh century until this day. 



Mode of Baptism. 19 

There is not a Catholic prelate or priest upon this or any soil, 
who will for a moment deny that baptidzo literally means to 
immerse, or will deny that immersion was the universal prac- 
tice of the apostles and of the church generally for thirteen 
hundred years. They are frank to admit that the original act 
has been changed by the authority of the church. I challenge 
the advocate of sprinkling to produce a scholar, lexicographer 
or historian, belonging to the Greek or Latin Catholic churches, 
who ever claimed that sprinkling and pouring are literal, proper 
meanings of the terra baptidzo^ or that either act was the 
practice of their respective churches for thirteen centuries, 
except in extreme cases, danger of death. This statement 
cannot be denied by any honest scholar. The reproach of 
this discussion rests, not upon the Greek or Latin Catholic 
communions, but, I say it with shame, upon a class oi modem 
Protestant controversialists. 

Calvin, the father and founder of Presbyterianism, and doubt- 
leas the ripest scholar of his age, as he is universally admitted 
to be the profoundest theologian, admitted that baptidzo means 
to immerse, and that this was the practice of the primitive 
churches. But still he practiced sprinkling or aspersion. 
And this is the way in which he vindicated his consistency in 
maintaining a practice in direct conflict with the teachings of 
God's word. He claimed that it was quite possible to retain 
the essence of the rite while departing somewhat from the pre- 
scribed form, and that the essence of baptism was retained by 
liim and his people, though they had made aspersion to super- 
sede immersion. 

The essence! and what is the essence? TV ho can give us 
any assurance that we have retained the essence of an ordi- 
nance when we deliberately depart from the mode prescribed 
by the law-giver? God commanded 'Noah to build an ark of 
Gopher wood, and suppose he had substituted white pine for 
Gopher wood, would this deviation from the divine command 
have retained the "essence" of it? If Noah had thus exer- 
cised his own discretion in a matter where none had been 
given him, would God have accepted the act as having in it 
the essence of obedience? The very supposition is prepos- 
terous, not to say impious. 



20 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Luther freely admitted that haptidzo means to immerse, and 
that the design of baptism seemed to require it as well as per- 
sonal faith on the part of the subject. And, to the credit of 
Protestantism, the overwhelming mass of her scholars, com- 
mentators and theologians, the priests and professors of her 
colleges and universities, and the hosts of her linguists, her 
lexicographers and historians, all admit and declare that hajp- 
tidzo means to immerse, and that immersion was undoubtedly 
the practice of the primitive churches; and the only exception 
is a small, and thank God ! a very small, class of modern con- 
troversialists who take the opposite position, and by this class, 
controversies like this originate. 

President E-obinson, of Brown University, in a recent print- 
ed address : 

" I siippoBe it to be admitted, Mr. President, by all real scholars, that 
biblical learning, and the higher biblical criticism, is altogether on our 
side. It is, perhaps, needless in this presence to say that the two, if not 
the three, foremost biblical scholars in this country are Baptists. I sup- 
pose it to be admitted by all real biblical scholars, of both Europe and 
America, that our mode of baptism was the primitive one. T suppose it 
to be admitted by all competent and candid scholars, European and 
xVmericau, that there was no infant baptism in the primitive church ; that 
the first Christians received baptism only on profession of personal faith 
in Christ; that there are no traces of either Episcopacy or Papacy in the 
New Testament. These I take to be the facts in the case. They are not 
disputed by impartial scholars. We can summon for our support, there- 
fore, the biblical learning of the world." 

Were these statements not defensible, so eminent a scholar, 
and so little a Baptist withal, would not have pronounced them 
in the ear of the world. 

In support of what I have said, I read three statements, one 
from a Baptist, one from a Lutheran, and one from a Presby- 
terian — most eminent men. 

1. President Robinson : " That the symbolism of baptism is opposed to 
the idea of sprinkling and pouring, or any other act than immersion." 

2. Bretschneider : "Baptize is the symbohcal rite by which, according 
to the injunction ( command ) of Christ, consecration of Christianity is 
accomphshed by the dipping of the person to be baptized into water, by 
means of which not only he becomes entitled to all the privileges, but 
also takes on himself aU the liabilities of the Christian." 

3. Dr. Geo. Campbell, Presbyterian, President of Marischal College, 
Scotland, 1796 : "I have heard a disputant, in defiance of etymology and 



Mode of Baptism. 21 

use, maintain that the word rendered in the New Testament haj)tize^ 
means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, and in defiance of all 
antiquity, that the former was the earhest and the most general practice 
in baptizing ! One who argues in this manner, never fails with persons 
of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend ; though with respect to 
the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as argument, and 
sometimes better ; yet a candid mind will always disdain to take the help 
of falsehood, even in the support of the truth." Leo, X. on Fulplt Elo.^ 
p. 302. 

Bemember Dr. C. was a Presbyterian. 

In supporting my proposition, I shall but establish the truth 
of these statements. I do not in the least indicate that my 
opponent will lay himself open to the rebuke of Dr. Geo. 
Campbell — he need not do it, but should he see fit to do so, I 
shall not seek to abate, but shall certainly think him deserving 
of the verdict Dr. Campbell so forcibly and justly pronounces 
upon so reckless a disputant. 

At the outstart of this discussion, I think it best to submit 
the leading rules of biblical interpretation, selected from 
standard sources, that must govern our investigations and 
interpretations of divine truth. I have selected them from 
Stuart, Morus, Ernesti, Home, and Blackstone, to none of 
which will my opponent object; if so, he can file his objection: 

EULBS OF INTERPRETATION. 

I. Kvery word ntusc have some specific idea or notion, which we call meaning. 
Were not this so, words would be meaningless and useless. 

II. The literal, which is also called the grammatical sense of a word, is 
the sense so connected with it that it is first in order, and is spontaneously 
presented ro the mind as soon as the sound is heard. This meaning is 
always (save in one lexicon, i. e., JStoJdus^) placed first in the lexi-cons, 
and is known as the primary meaning. 

III. ''The primary or literal meaning i^the only true oneV Ernesti^ 
p. U- 

Ernesti quotes Morus in support of this: 

"There can be no certainty at all in respect to the mterpretation of any 
passage, unless a kind of necessity compels us to affix a particular sense to 
a word; which sense, as I have before said, must be one; and unless there 
are special reasons for a tropical ( or secondary ) meaning, it must be the 
literal sense." 

Moses Stuart says: 

^ ' If asiy one should deny that the aJaove principles lead to certainty 



22 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

when strictly observed, he would deny the possibility of finding the mean- 
ing of language with certainty." 

Blackstone says: 

" To interpret a law, we must inquire after the vnll of the maker ^ which 
may be collected either from the words, the context, the subject-matter, 
the effects and consequences, or spmt and reason of the law. ( 1 ) Words 
are generaUy to be understood in their usual and most knowing signifi- 
catioa ; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar as their general 
and popular use. ■■■ ■•■ (2) If words happen still to be dubious, we may 
establish their meaning from the context, etc. Of the same natm'e and use 
is the comparison of law with laws that are made by the same legislator, 

that have some affinity with th*- suhject^ or that EXPKESSliY REIiATE TO THE 

SA3IE POIXT." I^aekstane^ & Com., Vol. I^ pp- 59-61. 

IV. We are not at liberty to fix an arbitrary sense to a word, nor can 
the meaning of a word be diverse oi* midtifarions at the same time and in 
the same passage, (i. e., the same woi'd cannot mean to sprinkle and to 
pom- upon or to dip into, since they are different acts.) 

Stnart remarks on this rule: 

( a) "The fact that usage has attached any-particular meaning to a word, 
iike any other historical fact, is to be proved by adequate testimony. 
This testimony may be drawn from books in which the word Ls employed, 
(this is the usus loquea<ii)^ But the fact of a particular meaning being 
attached to a word when once established, can no more be changed of 
denied than any historical fact whatever. 

(b) "All men, in their daily conversation and writings, attach but one 
sense to a word, at the same time and in the same passage, unless they 
design to speak in enigmas. Of course it would be in oppasition to the- 
universal custom of language, if ma-^e than one meaning should he attached 
to any word of Scripture in such a case." 

V. To attempt to gather the sense of words from things rather than 
what we ought to think of things from the words of the Holy Sphit, is 
deceptive and fallacious. 

Ernesti quotes Melanctbon as saying: 

" The Scripture cannot be understood theologically imtil it is understoo(3 

grammatically . ' 

Lutber also savs: 

" A certain knowledge of the sense of Scripture depends solely on a 
knowledge of words." 

I call special attention to the following most important, but 
generally overlooked or unreceived^ law of interpretation: 

VI. The principles of interpretation are common to saered and ordinary 
^vritings, and the Scriptures are to be investigated by the same rules as 
other books. »• 

Stuart adds tbis forcible remark: 
"The Bible was nxade for man^ and in the language of men,, and must 



Mode of Baptism. 23 

be transiiited by the rules that govern human language or they are of no 
use to the race," 

The last question we settle, touching the correct principles 

of interpretation is, how the meaning of a word can be 

ascertained. 

VII. The meaning of any word in the New Testament is to be deter- 
mined by the usus loquendi. 

1. By the usus loquendi is meant the sense which usage attaches to the 
words of any language. We obtain direct testimony as to the usus loquendi^ 
Says Ernesti : 

"1. From the writers to whom the language investigated was vernacular, 
or from their cotemporaries. 

"2. From those who, though foreigners, had learned the language in 
question. 

"3. From scholiasts, glossographies and versions made while the lan- 
guage was spoken, and by those who were acquainted with it. 

"4. By the comparison of parallel passages." 
Dr. Home gives us a few simple rules: 

1. The meoning of a word used by any writer is the meaning affixed to it 

by those for whom he immediately wrote. 

2. The received ( or most obvious ) signification of a word is to be in all 
eases retained unless weighty and necessary reasons require that it should 
be abandoned. 

3. In no case may w^e select a meaning repugnant to natural reason. 

The correctness of these rules, my opponent will not ques- 
tion — no man can question — and their application to the 
interpretation of God's word will forever, without the least 
difficulty, settle the meaning of baptidzo, and that of every 
other word connected with this discussion; and so easy are 
they to be understood and applied, that a child in years, if 
only accountable, can understand and apply them. — \^Timeout.'] 



24 ^HE Great Carrollton Debate. 

DR. DITZLER'S 

FIRST REPLY. 

Mr. President : — With profound gratitude to God for his 
preserving care and redeeming rnercy, we appear before you 
to-day to present our defense of what we beUeve to be the 
truth of God. It is with pleasure and satisfaction that we 
have one so experienced in Christian polemics, raatared in 
judgement, ripe in scholarship, skillful in debate as J. R. Graves, 
LL. D. 

From my extensive tours, of late years, in Tennessee, Ala- 
bama, Missouri and Texas, and in Southern Kentucky, T learned 
that no man on the Continent commanded the influence 
among Baptists that Dr. Graves now commands. It is, there- 
fore, with propriety that the Baptist papers speak as does the 
Western Baptist, when it says: 

"Dr. Graves has a reputation, honestly and fully deserved, 
that is world-wide. We doubt not, if it was left to the Bap- 
tists of the South and West, in such a discussion as the pres- 
ent one, he would be the first choice, b}' unanimous consent. 
His great familiarity with the points at issue, his wonderful 
powers of analysis, his rhetorical skill, his readiness and bril- 
liant repartee, make him a foe to be dreaded before the mass- 
es. In a word, he is everything that could be desired for the 
work before him." 

He evidently pities me, and says: 

" We rejoice that Mr. Ditzler has consented to become the 
scape-goat for the Methodists of Carrollton." 

In such a discussion as this, it is full}- expected that those 
fundamental principles in philology that lie at the foundation 
of this question, read by Dr. Graves, and on which all immer- 
sionist writers of note agree, the question turns — by them set- 
tled — will be fully, scientifically and, therefore, satisfactorily 
settled. Hence, so much do scholars realize this, that Dr. 
Conant has only 16 1-2 lines of English quotations from the 



Mode of Baptism. 25 

Bible. 16 1-2 lines from James' version, in his whole book on 
baptism, if I was correct in my careful count, and A. Camp- 
bell, 10 1-2. These are fair examples. 

The rules of exegesis, read to you by the Doctor, we cordially 
accept in their connection and intent, so far as Ernesti, Stuart 
and Blackstone were cited. 

MODE OR ACTION OF BAPTISM. 

The first thing in order now is, a definition of the terms so 
often to be used, and often accommodatingly, during this dis- 
cussion. 

Dip. — To dip, in the sense we aim to discuss here, is to put 
an object in or into an element (water) and immediately with- 
draw it. To such an act, we apply the word dip. (See Web- 
ster.) It was the word always used by the Baptists till com- 
paratively recent times. It is very different from immerse. 

Immerse. — Immerse is an Anglicized Latin word, eminent- 
ly classic, compounded of m, spelled fm for euphony, and mergo 
to sink. Plence, the English of immerse is to sink in. When- 
ever you put an object into or under a liquid, it is immersed 
while it remains in the element. The moment it is withdrawn, 
it is not immersed. 

Ill fully three-fourths of the terms in regular use, where dip 
is used, it is a partial, not complete, though momentary en- 
trance into the liquid. I am said to dip my finger into a drop 
of liquid, my pen in ink, a piece of bread in sop. There is 
no envelopment in such cases, and only momentary contact. 

AUTHORITIES. 

The authorities usually appealed to are (1) the expressions 
used in James' version, which is a reprint of Tyndale's, 1626, 
so far as the New Testament expi'essions and use of baptize 
go. As Dr. Graves proves, introduction to M. Stuart On 
Baptism, page 24, that immersion was the practice in Eng- . 
land, long after this, even till the 17th century, when asper- 
sion gradually came in; and A. Campbell, Christian Baptism 
140, proves that James' translators would not on any "occa- 
sion fuvor the innovation of sprinkling by any rendering or 



26 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Dote marginal in that translation," we are perfectly willing 
to appeal the case to the highest courts of judicature known 
in the republic of letters. 

By consent and practice of all parties, our leading sources 
of information here, are, 

1. The Lexicons. 

2. The Original Languages, in which now comparative 
philology must be introduced. 

3. The Ancient Versions, made by the most competent 
authorities, and so sustained and preserved through all time 
since. 

The first and most popular appeal is to the Greek Lexicons 

that define the verb baptidzo, L e , baptize. Over all the land, 

for years past, the language I find in last week's paper {^The 

Baptist), and verbatim the same in the tract sent out by the 

Central Baptist Company, St Louis, Mo., page 17, has been in 

substance reflected, until it is a song : 

"Thirty-two Greek lexicons define haptidzo^ to dip, plunge, or immerse, 
and not one of them defines it to pour or to sprinkle." 

We charge not those good men with willful wrong here. 
We believe they never saw the great body of the works else- 
where by them quoted or named. But we look for a better 
course hereafter. 

Are our immersion friends willing to be governed by the 
lexicons ? Will they abide their authority ? Some lexicons 
are written solely to explain classic Greek, where baptizo ap- 
plies to overwhleming with debts, taxes, burdens ; to intoxi- 
cate, overwhelming and sinking ships, drowning, overflowing, 
inundating, etc., i. e., to abusing, aspersing, pouring abuse 
upon people, but never in the J^ew Testament is it so used. 
In classics it is never used in any religious or ceremonial 
sense. 

They at times, though rarely, tell us such and such word is 
used in the ]^ew Testament in such and such sense, also mark- 
ing the distinction of its use and meaning in classic and New 
Testament Greek. 

On the contrary, many lexicons are published solely to de- 
fine ISTew Testament Greek. These vary in different schools 



Mode of Baptism. 27 

One, as Wahl, will explain the i^ew Testament words, at 
times, flora 'Now Testament stand-points, at others, wholly 
from the classic stand-point, while Stokius mixes badly and 
perplexes often, and is seemingly contradictory of himself. 
Others, the great body of them, give the classic meanings, 
then the E"ew Testament meaning elaborately. We shall 
quote the great body of the best lexicons of all schools and all 
ages known. 

To save time, then, we freely grant you, that when giving 
the classic meanings, all lexicons give either immerse, sink 
(its English), dip, plunge, overwhelm, often all, as among the 
classic meanings, and a very few, as Bretschneider, Wahl, 
etc., give one or more of these as among the New Testament 
meanings. We make this statement to do justice to all sides. 
Besides, our opponent will fully present that side. The only 
question with our opponent being : Do they give sprinkle or 
pour ? That is the point at issue now. 

I will give four authorities, first, who did not write lexi- 
cons, or a Clavis, Critica Sacra, etc., but who spoke from the 
stand-point of lexicography, defining and rendering the word. 
We quote them, because they are earlier than any lexicon we 
have defining baj)tidzo, Hesychius and Suidas, i. e., natives, of 
the 4th and 10th centuries, only defining partially the root 
bapto. 

1. Tertullian, A. D., 190, defines baptizo to sprinkle (per- 
fundere). De Anima, c. 51. 

2. Julianus, 4th century, a most learned critic, defines it 
sprinkle (perfundere). Beza's Annot. Matt. iii. 

3. Augustine, the illustrious theologian of that age, sanc- 
tions this, as to its religious import. See Beza's Annot. Matt, 
iii. 6, 11, folio. 

4. Euthymius, a learned Greek father, 4th century, renders 
baptizo to sprinkle, [rantidzd). Alford, on Mark vii. 4. 

5. Schw^arzius, to sprinkle, to besprinkle, to pour upon. 
Ingham (Baptist) Hand-book on Baptism, p. 40, and in 
Booth's Pedobaptist, in Baptist Library, p. 351-2. 

6. Giimshaw, (copied) "besprinkle." 



2 8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

7. Ed. Ivobinsou, " the more general idea of ablution or 
afiusion." 

8. Kouma, native Greek, besprinkle, shed forth. 

9. Wahl, edition of 1831, to sprinkle {jperfundo). 

10. Parkhurst, 111, eflusion, copying Stokius. 

11. Liddell & Scott, 1st edition, steep, wet, pour upon. 

12. Suicer, by immersion or sprinkling (jper immersionem aut 
aspersionem). 

13. Schneider, wie brecho (as that word in meaning), shed 
forth, sprinkle, wet. 

14. Sophocles, ablution, bathed (baptized) in tears. 

15. Ed. Leigh, to sprinkle [adspergere). 

16. Wolfius, sprinkle (asjpersione). 

17. Walaeus, indiiferently sprinkling, or immersion {asper- 
sione an immersione). Leigh's Grit. Sac. 

18. Vossius, iii. (adspergere) to sprinkle. 

19. Arst, perfusion [perfusionem). 

20. Schaetgennius, to pour forth (profundo). 

21. Ewing, pour abundantly upon, i. e., infuse. Ligham, 
p. 39. Elder Wilkes, Louisville Debate, 511, reports him 
overwhelmed by pouring upon, drench or impregnate with 
liquor by afiusion. 

22. Gazes, learned native Greek, shed forth anything, water, 
pour upon (epichuno)^ epi, upon ; and cheo, pour. 

23. Stokius. As the three following lexicons are so im- 
portant, and so generally garbled, we will read their defini- 
tions in full, the more as Stokius and Schleusner are of the 
class that believed that wash, sprinkle, etc., were meanings 
derived from the idea of dipping or immersing. 

Stokius, " baptidzo, lavo, baptizo^ passwum baptidzomai, luor, 
lavor — I wash, (wash, wet, besprinkle), I baptize^ passive voice, 
I am washed." He then gives its classic, or general meaning, 
as he understood it, in the usual note he appends to most 
words, where he analyzes it from the unscientific and false 
itand-point of that day, refuted by both sides now. " Gener- 
illy, and by tlit force oi 'he word, it obtains the sense of dip- 



Mode of Baptism. 29 

plug or immersing. Specially (a) properly it is to immerse 
or dip in water, (b)- Tropically, (1) by a metalepsis, it is to 
wash (lavare), or cleanse (abluere), because anything is accus- 
tomed to be dipped or immersed in water, that it may be 
washed or cleansed, {ut lavetur, vel abluatur, quamquam et ad- 
spergendo aquam, lotio vel ablutio fieri qiieat et soleat, Mark vii. 4; 
Luke xi. 38. Hinc transferetur ad baptismi sacramentum, etc. 
. . . Per Met. designat (a) miranulosam. Spiritus S. [sancti'] effit- 
sioTiem super apostolos, aliosque credentes, turn ob donorum Spiritus 
S., copiam., prout olim aqua baptizaiidis copiose aff'uyidebatur, vel 
nil penitus in aquam immergebantur, etc.) Note well this author, 
— "that it may be washed or cleansed, although also, the wash- 
ing or cleansing can be, and generally is, accomplished by 
SPRINKLING THE WATER, Mark vii. 4, Luke xi. 38. Hence, it is 
transferred to the sacrament of baptism." Here Stokius, 
always heralded as the prince of immersion lexicons, tells us 
that the washing of baptidzo was generally [soleat fieri) accom- 
plished {adspergendo) by sprinkling the water, and cites the gos- 
pels of Mark and Luke as his proofs ; — in view of that fact, the 
term is " applied to the sacrament of baptism," and quotes a 
number of texts on that point. But he does not stop there. 
" 3. Metaphorically, it designates (a) the miraculous pouring 
out {efil'usionem) of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and other 
believers, as well on account of the abundance of the gifts of 
the Hoh^ Spirit, since anciently the water was copiously 
poured upon those baptized, or they were immersed deep in 
the water, etc." Here Stokius declares that because the water 
was copiously poured on those baptized, hence the I^ew Tes- 
tament writers apply baptidzo to the miraculous pouring out of 
the Spirit. 

24. Schleusner has been claimed as a great witness for ex- 
clusive immersion. I hold him as well as Stokius in my hand. 
He is a great standard. " Properly : I immerse or dip, I 
plunge into water, from bapto, and answers to (z. e., translates) 
tabhal, 2 Kings v. 14, in the Alexandrian version, and tahha 
in [the version of] Symmachus, Ps. 68, 5. and in an uncertain 
one p. e., who translated it,] Ps. ix. 6. But in this sense it 
never occurs in the New Testament, but very frequently [it 



30 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

does] in Greek writers [i. e., classics], for example, Diodorus 
Siculus i. 36, of the overflowing of the Mle {de Nilo exundante), 
etc." " Strabo, Polybius, etc." Like Stokius, he now de- 
rives wash, cleanse, from the idea of dipping in water that an 
object may be washed, "hence, 2. abluo, lavo, aqua purgo'' — I 
cleanse, I wash, I purify with water. Thus {sic) it occurs in 
the IN'ew Testament," etc. He cites cases, renders it wash 
(lavare) each time, or baptizo — " not only to wash, but even to 
wash one's self can be proved by many passages. Hence, it is 
transferred to the eolemn rite of baptism." He shows where, 
ill this connection, the Greek baptidzo interchanged in many 
codices (MSS.) with rantidzo, sprinkle. He continues : " 4. 
Metaphorically, as the Latin {imbuo) to imbue, to give and ad- 
mi iiister to copiously, POUR forth {prof undo) abundantly." 
Such is the testimony of this learned lexicographer. His sense 
is — baptidzo is not used modally in the I^ew Testament at all. 
It is used for an ordinance, a rite. It may be performed in 
ang mode joossible — dip, sprinkle, pour. In the mere sense of 
(lip, etc., it never occurs there — in the classic ^qu^q it never oc- 
curs, as in Diodorus Sic. 1, Strabo, Polybius — in the mere 
sense of '■^ tabhal and tabha^' in Hebrew. Note, he gives 
" pour " as one of its IS'ew Testament uses. 

25. Passow. We reserve this to the last, because it is ad- 
mitted by all scholars — German, English, American — by im- 
inersionists and affasionists to be the most learned, most 
scientific and critical of all Greek lexicons ever issued — 1841 
— being in three large volumes, the one I hold having 1,884 
pages in it, double column, fine rrint. Hence, the falsity of 
Liddell and Scott, whose lexicon, far smaller than this one 
volume, though coarser print also, is claimed to be an enlarge- 
ment of this ! It is in German. " Baptidzo, from bapto, 1, oft 
and repeatedly to immerse, to submerge, with eis and ^ro5, etc. 
Thence, to moisten, to wet, sprinkle {benetzen, anfeuchten, 
begiessen . . . ubr., ubergiessen, itberscliutten, uberhaufen, etc.) 
. . . generally to besprinkle, to pour upon, to overwhelm, to 
burden with taxes, debts, etc. ... 3. to baptize, sufier one's 
self to be baptized ; also to bathe, to wash." Such is Passow's 
and Post's testimony. 



Mode of Baptism. 31 

Where now this cry of no lexicon defining baptidzo to 
sprinkle nor to pour? What will they say now? Will they 
cease such publications ? Or will they go on as before, and 
repeat the same old song with ears deaf, and necks hardened 
against all the facts in the case ? 

There is another class of lexicons in the Greek, we must 
notice. Budaeus, 1519. H. Stephanus, 1572. Scapula, 1579. 
Pasow, Hedericus, Schrevellius, etc., being all abridgements 
directly from Stephanus, and he the same as Budaeus. These 
all give (1) for classic meaning, sink and overwhelm. (2) 
They do not define it by dip, the very thing our opponents all 
want. (3) ]^ot one of them gives any other New Testament 
meaning than abluo, lavo, cleanse, wash. They all being mere 
abridgements, Budaeus and Stephanus alone deserve atten- 
tion. They carefully separate the New Testament meaning 
from the classic meaning. While they carefully define it by 
words that cover our case, by a word that while it means to 
wash (lavo) is also defined besprinkle by every Latin lexicon 
we ever saw, yet they never give dip or immerse as a New 
Testament or Bible meaning at all. Hence, we have now 
over thirty authorities, from the stand-point of simple lexico- 
graphy, with us, and against our opponent. 

This is the more valuable, when we remember that Bud- 
aeus and Stephanus were reared and wrote their lexicons 
under the supreme reign of dipping— when dipping was the 
law and almost universal practice. See Conant, Baptizein, 
138-9, law in England for dipping, as lately reinforced in 1662, 
and observed as such by J. Wesley, 1736, in the colony of 
Georgia, because a royal statute required it, and Wall, ii. 681, 
note on Dr. Whittaker, 1624. 

It must be remembered, that as late as 1470 there was not 
a man in France, England or Germany that could read Greek, 
nor up till then had a grammar or lexicon of the Greek been 
published in either of those countries. Hence, a scientific or 
philological treatment of the subject could not be as yet ex- 
pected. The sympathy of all the early lexicographers of France 
and England was with immersionists. Hence, quotations 
from Aquinas, Scotus, etc., 13th century, as well as many 



32 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

others we see in Booth and Baptist works, amount to nothing 
on such a question as this, their opinion being worth no more 
than it would be on astronomy, and for the same reason. 

But our opponents,' so confident in lexicography, will not, 
dare not risk their cause with the lexicons. Far from it. 
President J. M. Pendleton, of Pennsylvania, formerly of Ten- 
nessee, in " Why I am a Baptist, " 86, 96 ; Dr A. Carson, 23, 
46, 55-6; Ingham, 4o ; A, Campbell, 114,122,127; Brents, 
263-9 ; Conant and Gale and Fuller throughout, and Prof. 
Ripley, unite in the sentiment: "Use is the sole arbiter of 
language." Lexicons " do not constitute the ultimate au- 
thority." To the original Greek, therefore, and the funda- 
mental laws of language, the science of word building, of 
philology, we have to go. If j^ou will turn your telescope 
to the philological heavens, now for the next day or so, you 
will see great auroras of Greek light blazing across the sky; 
the canons of awful criticism will thunder in your ears, and 
Greek fire light up all your houses. 

In a word^now is the time to test the fundamental princi- 
ples on which our opponents build their superstructure, test 
their value, and try all these so-called canons, by which th(jy 
jiropose to prove their propositions. If we are to appeal 
to hmguage, we propose that it be in good faith that we clo 
so appeal, and not to fiy back from the consequences. The 
day has come when our claims here are to be tried on the 
merits of the case, b}' the strictest laws of language — by meth- 
ods that are scientific — not superficial, empirical. 

Immersionists rely upon the following as settled principles 
and facts in philology : 

1. That if baptidzo or any word means to dip or immerse, it 
never can mean to sprinkle or to pour. Dr. Fuller, 15, 25; 
Carson, 52, Ingham, 104, 109, 184,9; A. Campbell, Christian 
Baptism, 147-9; Fraser, 70; Hinton, 44; Wilson, 184-5, etc., 
etc. 

2. That wash is always a meaning of baptidzo, from the idea 
of dipping — a result of it. 

I now appeal to Dr. Graves, and ask him, and all his learn- 
ed associates here : Is not the study of languages to proceed 



Mode of Baptism. 33 



as any of the sciences, by first collecting all the facts possible, 
and then proceeding by inductive reasoning? He is bound to 
answer, Yes. Have the authors — any of them, done this, or 
attempted it, as far as this word is concerned, after a scientific . 
method ? Can he name two lexicons that are not translations 
or abridgments, the one of the other, or both from one, that 
render this word alike? He cannot. Take Schleusner's two 
lexicons — one for New Testament, the other for Septuagint 
Greek — his definitions of baptidzo are wholly difierent — radi- 
cally diflerent. Take Wahl, a noted lexicographer as well as 
Schleusner, of the present century. In two editions of the 
same year, 1829, his definitions are radically different as to 
order, and everything reversed. In a third edition, 1831, he 
changes it again, erasing immerse, and inserting sprinkle, just 
as he had erased lavo, wash, besprinkle, from its place, and in 
the second edition inserted immerse. If science were under- 
lying his superstructure, it could not totter thus. 
We now propose to prove the following facts : 

1. That no lexicon gives immerse or dip as a meaning of 
baptidzo in Greek, earlier than B. C. 165. i. e. Polybius; next, 
Diodorus Siculus, B. C. QQ to 32; next, Strabo, B. C. 54 to 
A. D. 54; next, Josephus and Plutarch, till A. D. 120. 

2. That baptidzo never means to dip. 

3. That, though it means in later classic Greek to immerse, 
it is a derived, a late, remote meaning, as well as ^ rare one. 

4. That by all the laws of language, the science of language, 
sprinkle is the primary meaning of the word. 

5. That all the facts, all dates, all the laws of all kindred or 
remoter languages completely sustain and demonstrate this 
fact. 

I am to show, then, first, that no lexicon gives immerse or 
dip as a meaning in Greek, earlier than Polybius. This only 
requires a dip into them ; a glance. Wahl, the most favor- 
able to immersion of all lexicons, gives Josephus first, Poly- 
bius next; he is the oldest, he qnotes for it, or at all. 
Swarzius, Polybius first and oldest that he quotes ; so of 
Stephanus, Liddell and Scott. Some lexicons begin with Plu- 
tarch, some with Diodorus Siculus, some with Josephus, a few 

8 



34 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

with Polybius ; not one goes higher up than to him for im- 
merse. So Terretinus and Delingius begin with Plutarch. E"ot 
one ever quotes authority for a literal meaning of baptidzo earlier 
than the same ones just given. This is far down in the decline, 
in the Iron Age of Greek. Is that science ? Is that philology ? 
This proves one thing, at least : These lexicons were not dis- 
cussing ^nmanes, nor how meanings were derived. That field 
is all virgin soil yet ; an unexplored sea, so far as baptidzo is 
concerned. 

The Greek language had been spoken 1,400 years before 
Diodorus Siculus and these authors flourished. It had been 
reduced to written forms nearly a thousand years before these 
men flourished ! What changes, what revolutions occurred 
during these centuries of change, of toil, of wars, of revolu- 
tions, and how absurd to seize a late, a remote, a rare mean- 
ing, as not only the primary one, but the only one. 

Second, we will now demonstrate that immerse is a rare 
and late meaning, and dip no meaning at all. And (1), the 
lexicons sufficiently attest that immerse is the latest of all the 
meanings of baptidzo ; (2), the texts they always cite, demon- 
strate that dip is never a meaning of baptidzo. Let Dr. Graves 
examine them and find one that means dip ; a single citation 
given by any lexicon in classic Greek ; (3), we propose to 
prove the entire proposition just made, by the highest immer- 
sion authorities in the world — that have lived, or do live. 

a. Here, let it be remembered, they have all appealed their 
cause to the last and highest court, the originals in Greek, the 
classics themselves. 

b. Let it be carefully noted that this has been chosen as 
their best and main support ; the Gibraltar of defense; the lair 
where they think to turn upon their pursuer with hope of suc- 
cessful resistance. 

c. We take their own rendering, when avowedly writing 
and translating to support their practices by the classics. 

d. Before we summon our witnesses, let us hear what these 
immersion luminaries wish to prove ; for which, like giants, 
they hurl such fearful missiles : 



Mode of Baptism. 



OJ 



1. Dr. Cox, Baptist, says : 

"The idea of dipping is in every instance [of ha'pto and hajptidzcP^ con- 
veyed." 

2. Booth, the great standard of Baptists and disciples : 

*' 5ajo<io?zo is a specific term. [So says constantly, A. Campbell, e.g., 
p. 148.] The English expression dip, is a specific term." 284. 

3. Dr. Gale, learned Baptist : 
"Dipping, only, is baptism." 

4. Roger Williams, professed founder in America of the 
Baptists : 

" Dipping is baptizing, and baptizing is dipping." 

5. Dr. A. Carson : 

" My position is, that it always signifies to dip." Page 55. 

6. A. Campbell, disciple : 

"All the learned admit that its \havt%dzo\ primary, proper, and un- 
figiu"ative meaning is to clip. •■ ••■ ■■■■ For all allow that dip is the pri- 
mary and proper meaning of &a/>?fo." He asserts that hapUdzo "inherits 
the proper meaning oibnp^ [the root syllable] which is dip." Christian 
Baptism, 120. 

This, then, is settled ; baptidzo, according to Baptist author- 
ities, and A. Campbell, always means to dip ; nothing else. 
Dip is the action of their baptism. 

Let us now present their great lights in Europe and Ameri- 
ca, past and present, on this subject. Let me begin with Dr. 
J. M. Pendleton, bosom friend in the past with Dr. Graves. 

1. Prof Pendleton — " Why I am a Baptist." From page 
97 to 100, cites baptidzo 22 times. Out of these 22 cases, he 
renders baptidzo " immerse " twice ; that is 20 against two. 
He renders it dip, only once; that is 21 against one I Think 
of that ! Once only, does he find baptidzo, to his satisfaction, 
meaning to dip ! 

2. Dr. Gale, Baptist, result — 18 against three immerse ! 
Yea, and 18 against three to dip, in classic usage. In Bible 
and Apocrypha, outside the ordinance, which is the point to 
be proved, he has three against one dip. 

3. Dr. R. Fuller, Baptist, has it sink 12 times, immer&e 
three, dip one ; 21 against one dip ! 

4. M. Stuart, Pedobaptist, summing up all the arguments 
for immersion, endorsed on that part by all the Baptists who 
now write, especially by Dr. Graves, who publishes it to aid 



36 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

their cause ; result ; Of 41 citations on baptidzo, immerse 3 
times, dip once; overwhelm 22 times, overflow once. Here, 
we have 38 cases, against three for immerse ; 40 against one 
for dip I 

5. Dr. A. Carson, the favorite Baptist, prince of their de- 
baters in Europe or America — 31 citations. Of these, im- 
merse three times, dip three times; i. e., 28 against three 
dip ! Yet he said it always meant to dip ! 

6. Conant, head of Bible translators, prince of Baptist 
scholars in the East — New York. Out of 63 consecutive cases, 
pages 43 to 82, immerse 10, whelm 45, overwhelm 8 ; that is, 
53 against 10 for immerse; 63 against no dip! Does it al- 
ways mean to dip? Of uncompounded occurrences, classic 
use, 141. Of these 141 cases, dip seven times ; that is, 134 
against seven for dip ! It always means to dip, does it ! 

7. Ingham, Baptist, who had Conant, Carson, Gale and A. 
Campbell, Booth, etc., before him. Of 169 occurrences of bap- 
tidzo, he renders it overwhelm 50 times ; dip, once ! That is 
168 cases against one for dip ! Does baptidzo always signify 
to dip ? 

8. We must not pass A. Campbell here. He was a scar- 
worn veteran ; an Ajax in this water war. In his maturest 
work. Christian Baptism, he cites baptidzo 24 times. He ren- 
ders it sink 10 times, overwhelm 10 times, overflow one; but 
of the entire list, he does not render it dip a single time. 
Bapto, the root, he renders dip constantly on the same pages, 
and his renderings, as a whole, are the most accurate, just and 
faithful we have ever seen from the immersion side. 

Let it sound through the land; tell it everywhere, ye 
lovers of truth and fair dealing, that the prince of all Ameri- 
can debaters, who carried war, they say, to the gates of Baby- 
lon, if he did not against the gates of Zion rather, hero of 
Bethany, after wading through a thousand years of Greek, 
and elbow deep in folios and musty alcoves, burdened with 
the lore of centuries, when asserting that dip is its "primary, 
proper and unflgurative meaning," returns to day, to light, to 
a thirsty, panting, anxious people, empty of results ; not a 
case of dip in all the classic field! Enough on that point; it 



Mode of Baptism. 37 

is made out. The sum of all these renderings is 457, against 
18 for dip ! These 18 cases are false renderings, as the ren- 
dering of Conant, Ingham, Stuart, and A. Campbell demon- 
strate. A careful examination of the case in Plutarch, the 
strongest in their estimation they have, will show it is not 
dip. 

In no instance on earth do the classics apply baptidzo to any act 

that is the baptism of the Baptists ; not once do they. In no in- 
stance does it apply to the action of their baptism. 

Having demonstrated from immersion sources, of such 
weight also, that, first, baptidzo does not mean to dip; second, 
that immerse is a rare meaning; we proceed now, third, to 
prove that it is a derived as well as a later meaning of baptidzo. 

a. The assumption that bapto and baptidzo are exactly the 
same in meaning, save that bapto applies to staining, dyeing, 
etc., and baptidzo never, is utterly untrue, and the renderings 
of Carson, Stuart, A. Campbell, Conant and Ingham show it. 
If they did not, an appeal to the texts at once demonstrates it. 

b. Carson, Ingham, Conant, etc., have demonstrated that 
the old rules relied on by Vossius, Beza, Suicer, Witsius^ 
Terretinus, Casaubon, etc., in defining baptidzo., and account- 
ing for its meaning, is all a monstrous blunder. We leave it 
with them. In it these old writers insist that it differs from 
dunai on the one hand for certain reasons, and from epipolidzo 
on the other, etc. See Carson 65-6 ; Conant 88-89. 

c. A. Campbell, Judd, Conant, Carson, Ingham, Pres. Pen- 
dleton and Dr. J. R. Graves, all feel satisfied that the laws of 
philology on which most of these men relied to prove that 
baptidzo also came to mean sprinkle, pour, are all false, and 
demolished. Ind-eed, as they feel that they have demolished 
the canons of the old school, we propose to prove beyond the 
shadow of a doubt that theie laws of language are equally un- 
reliable — untrue. 

1. The very fact that the lexicons assign to no writer earlier 
than Polybius, B. C. 165 years, the meaning of immerse under 
the word, is proof, as far as lexicons go. But we readily 
gTai:!t.^ as all scholars will d©^ that they are not an " ultimate 



38 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

authority " at all. But second, as baptidzo occurs centuries 
before Polybius, and in metaphorical senses as well as in a 
literal sense long before his day, it clearly points to an earlier 
meaning, which can easily be determined by the laws of lan- 
guage. Let us see some of the universally admitted mean- 
ings of baptidzo in classic and Bible or Scriptural Greek. 
Coiiant gives it fourteen meanings. A. Campbell gives it in 
all his w^orks — full twenty. Among its recognized meanings 
are intoxicate, wash, cleanse, whelm, overflow, overwhelm, 
and these are among its early meanings — long before it meant 
immerse. 

. 3. By no law of language can you derive these meanings 
from immerse or (tip as a primary. Take the definite and 
most decisive words for dip or immerse either — in all Aryan 
and Semitic languages, and you (1) never find their meanings 
derived thence; (2) ihey cannot be so derived in the very 
nature of things, because so opposite in the great essential 
points of connection. Hence, the words for immerse and dip 
in Greek, enduo, buthidzo, pontidzo, kataduo, katapontidzo, dupto, 
never mean to wash ; never mean to intoxicate, burden with 
taxes ; never to whelm, overflow or overwhelm ; never to 
wash. The Latin mergo^ immergo, demergOy submergOy (intingo 
is dip); the Hebrew kfbha, kaphash, shakha; the Persic, 
ghuta, Ethiopic, maaby maba, Arabic, gatta^ gamara^ quamasa, all 
mean to immerse. German, sinken, tauchen, under tauchen^ ein- 
taitchen — immerse, dip ; English, sink, dip ; where and when 
do they come to mean wash, overflow, whelm, overwhelm, or 
to asperse or abuse ? The acknowledged meanings, then, of 
baptidzo, cannot be derived from dip or immerse. Hence, 
neither of these were primary meanings of the word. 

4. " Overflow " is the meaning o^hap)tidzom Aristotle, near- 
ly 200 years before Polybius. Hence, as baptidzo meant over- 
flow quite 200 years before it meant immerse, it cannot be 
derived from immerse as a meaning ! 

5. It meant '' overwhelm " in Plato ; so rendered by all 
lexicons, by all Baptists, by A. Campbell, by all, so far as we 
have noticed, every time it occurs in Plato. Here, we find 
baptidzo meaning overwhelm, the element ap)plied to the object— 



Mode of Baptism. " 39 

coming upon it, nearly two ceiitaries and a half before we find 
it meaning to immerse. Hence, such a late child cixnnot be the 
parent of such a remote ancestor. ]N"or can overwhelm be de- 
rived from immerse or dip. 

6. Drs. Gale, Cox, Morell, Mell, admit that haptidzo applies 
to cases where "the water comes over it" — baptized by ''su- 
perfusion." So A. Campbell, in the case of Elijah's altar on 
which 12 pitchers (as the Hebrew reads) of water were 
poured. Origen, Basil, and other Greeks calling it baptizing 
the altar, the wood, that it "overwhelmed, as it were the 
altar." Here was baptism, also, b}^ " superfusion " from 
their own standpoint. [See Gale, Reflec. on Wall, ii, 76; 
Ingham, 26, 27, 62]. "The abundant pouring of water on 
the altar, of which we have an account in 1 Kings, xvii, 32-35, 
and which was done thrice, is spoken of by Origen as a bap- 
tism," 62. So speaks Mr. Ingham, Baptist. Now, aside from 
questions about specific action here, dip, etc., how can " super- 
fusion," " overwhelming;" clear and admitted cases of pouring; 
cases where the baptizing element comes over^ comes upon, is 
poured upon the object; be derived from dip, from sink, etc.; 
from immerse? When did a word that properly and primarily 
meant immerse come derivatively to have such a meaning? 
Never! never! 

7. But we now proceed to prove that words primarily mean- 
ing to sprinkle by common consent, and by all the facts; others 
that mean to moisten, where it is by affusion of liquids, 
to wit: Where it is by affusion — often of tears, dew, rain, 
juices of plants, vegetable matter; etc., do come, derivatively, 
to mean all that haptidzo means ; all that is claimed for it or for 
bapto. This will (1), refute the boasted law on which immer- 
sionists feel willing to risk their case. [Ingham, p. 108-9; 
Hinton, 31; A, Campbell, 147-8; Carson, 52; Fuller, 15, 25]; 
that if the word ever means immerse or dip — (or dye, Car- 
son) — it can never mean sprinkle or pour. (2), it will recon- 
cile all difficulties; bring out the whole beauty of language, 
and give us a firm, immovable foundation on which to stand. 

Of a vast number of words that I have traced out, let us 
present a few^ from diflerent branches of the two great families 



40 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of languages in which the Bible and its versions and literature 
corae down to us — Semitic and Aryan. We can only give a 
few of the many as samples. 

1. Garakha, Arabic, Primarily, it is to bedew^, drop water, 
rain, dilute gently with tears; yet it comes to mean submerge, 
immerse, immersed in the sea, Castel. Shindler gives sweat, 
pour, (Jundit), yet repeats the definition immerse 20 times. 

2. Chawits ; Heh. ChaL, to sprinkle with water; Schindler, 
sprinkle. ( Chamits), Gesenius Thesaurus, sprinkle ( consjpersa). 
Yet it is to stain, dye, color, to dip, to immerse, Castel — 
{intingere^ immergere). 

3. llathoth, Hebrew, sprinkle, immerse, immersion, Castel. 

4. Shataph, Hebrew, Primarily, to trickle down, let fall, dis- 
till — "To gush or pour forth" — Gesenius — noun-form — '^a 
pouring rain," "An out-pouring rain, raingust," — Furst. ITow 
note and trace this word. Primarily it is to trickle down, shed 
drops, let fall, distil. 

In Leviticus it comes to mean to wash; occurring three 
times, rendered kludzo in the Greek version. 

I^ext, still later, in 1 Kings, xxii, 38, it means to wash, 
applied to washing a chariot. We know the mode. Later, in 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel frequently it occurs, meaning to over- 
flow, overwhelm. Dan. xi, 10, also it means overflow, meta- 
phorically. It still applies to such a "pouring rain," Ezekiel 
xxxviii, 22, as overflows. Later still it comes to mean immerse^ 
and is so defined by BuxtorfiFand all the authorities defining 
its later meaning. Its uses show it. 

5. The Chaldee word tseva. This word only occurs in Dan- 
iel; is a Chaldee, Arabic and Syriac, but not a Hebrew, word. 
It is thus defined by Pabbi Furst, "to moisten, to besprinkle, 
to baptize." It is translated by Jerome, sprinkle — (consperga- 
tur). Its root meaning is to sprinkle, shed forth. In later 
Chaldee, Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel it is often used for 
wash, rendered from kabas in Hebrew, wash. Later still, it 
came to apply to partial dips. Later still, it meant immerse 
also. 

6 One more Semitic word — Hebrew and Arabic — balal, 
balala. The root meaning is by all the great standards, 



Mode of Baptism. 41 

(l),Freytag — Arabic lexicon — to moisten, and especially to wet 
or macerate by sprinkling or gentle affusion of liquid — (asperso 
aut leviter affuso humore.) 

2. Castel " Moisten and specially wet or macerate by 
sprinkling." 

3. Gesenius : " To wet, moisten by affusion of liquid — 
phal phal — same root; sprinkle, (conspersit). 

4. Leigh: "Sprinkle, {conspersit)." 

5. Schindler: " Pour, sprinkle." 

Yet this word comes ultimately to mean "to dip," "to dip 
in" — so rendered by the lexicons, [intmxit — Schindler), and 
is the Arabic translation of Luke xvi, 24; John xiii, 26, of 
hapto, " that he may dip the tip of his finger in water," "when 
I have dipped it." To the same purpose we could quote 
shabal, yiaisach, 7iakha, tsuph, shapha, rathav, lathar, etc., more 
or less: all covering leading meanings of bapto Siud baptidzo, 
beginning with sprinkle or its equivalent. 

In the Greek, the following will do: (1), kludzo, Passow: 
wash, bedash, wet. The Glosses, sprinkle, {aspergo, perfundo). 
Budaeus and Ste^phaiwis, pcrildusmati, sprinkling, [asperyine). 
Groves, perikludzo, "to wash all round or all over, dash water, 
sprinkle all over." Its primary force was to sprinkle or bedash 
with water, where more or less force occurred. Clyster is its 
noun; to that oftenest it is applied in earlier Greek. Yet in 
Aristotle even, it means to overflow when strengthened by a 
preposition — kata; and in late Greek, Achilles Tatius, etc., it 
applies to floods, inundations, overflowings commonly. 
Hence Stephanus, Schrevellius, etc., render it " submerge, to 
be submerged." 

See now how the law operates. Primarily baptidzo is to 
sprinkle. The same word constantly means in Greek, He- 
brew, Latin, Arabic, both to sprinkle and to pour. From 
pouring of rain, of water or rain, comes wash as a meaning. 
The roots of herbs, dust, all soiHng elements, are w^ashed off 
from trees, vegetable matter, houses, fences, by pouring rains. 
From pouring rains we have overflow. That is a derived 
meaning of bop)tidzo we see. From same we have overwhehUo 



42 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

From overwhelm we have, as the effect of being overwhelmed, 
sink, immerse. Thus the philology is perfect, and sprinkle 
demonstrated as the primary meaning of baptidzo, by all the 
laws of philology in the world — by all the demonstrated science 
of language. If words are to be used in their primaey 
sense, and only thus in the 'New Testament, WE ONLY 
ARE BAPilZED— NO BAPTIST 181— [Time up.] 



Mode of Baptism. 43 



DR. GRAVES' SECOND SPEECH. 

[Replication.] 

Mr. President: — The speech of Elder Ditzler shows that 
he possesses great familiarity with a great many languages, or 
at least with their lexicons. Besides Latin, Greek and Hebrew, 
he has the Chaldean, the Arabic, the Syriac, the Coptic, and I 
know not what Asiatic and African dialects — to say nothing 
of the Cherokee, Creek and Choctaw — all at his finger ends. 
And what was all this array of learning and erudition designed 
to effect? I confess I am utterly at a loss to conjecture, unless 
it was to substantiate that strangest of all positions — a position 
so utterly unfounded and untenable that I cannot but com- 
miserate the man whom the exigencies of his argument 
compel to have recourse to it, to wit: that until within the 
last forty or fifty years, the most eminent scholars of all coun- 
tries were utterly ignorant of philology, the etymology and 
derivation of the terms of even their own mother tongue ; but 
his lexicons, save one, are all against him. If such was actually 
the condition of affairs, then the jurist and the philosopher would 
have been unable to use language with that clearness and pre- 
cision which I had supposed was essential to a lucid and scientific 
presentation of their teachings. This, I confess, is truly wonder- 
ful! Itisutterly strange and unheard of. I listened most atten- 
tively as my opponent proceeded with his disjointed and — as I 
cannot but regard it — incoherent harangue, but I candidly 
confess that, at least three-fourths of it, I was unable to 
understand or to see its drift. You, Mr. President, m-ay have 
understood it, but I confess I did not. I could not see any 
relevancy of, at least, three-fourths of it, to the question at issue. 

I understand my friend's position to be, that the primary 
meaning of baptizo is to sprinkle — or pour — primary^ observe, 
not secondary or general. And to sustain this, a great array 
of lexical authorities has been introduced. We are after 
facts, however, and not fancies, and shall hereafter have an 



44 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

opportunity of testing the value of these citations. Well, 
this is a square issue; something, therefore, has been gained 
by the morning's speeches. 1. We are agreed, as to the 
principles of interpretation, and 2, in our resolve to stand by 
them. That, too, is a matter for mutual gratulation, as being 
a propitious omen. We shall all profit by it. I intend to 
make the word of God the man of my counsel, not some phi- 
lological theory, based upon a usus loquendi, of which we have 
no traces except in a period far anterior to the building of 
Rome. I say to you, it is with this Book, we have to do; it 
is by this Word we have to be governed. If Elder Ditzler 
made one impression stronger than another by his array of 
authorities, abounding in discrepancies, it was this, that it 
must be a most difiicult matter to understand the meaning of 
the Sacred text! He says that, with reference to this word 
baiytidzo, one authority gives one meaning and another another 
meaning. If this is the case where scholars are concerned, 
what are the common people to do ? How are they to know 
wdiat to do? In the name of Jesus Christ, I protest against 
this. He even affirmed that the meaning of terms in the 
Greek ivTew Testament, cannot be learned from classical Greek ; 
that it is not the same Greek ! I assert that the inspired 
writers wrote in the language of that age, and a Greek child 
of fifteen years could have understood it. Now in regard to 
the meaning of this term hajptidzo^l will quote from Sophocles, 
a native Greek, and professor of the Greek language in Yale 
College. He says : " Baptidzo means, mergo, tmgo, to immerse, io 
dip, in the New Testament, everywhere." 

There can be produced no authority of greater weight than 
Sophocles upon this point — a native Greek, familiar with the 
ancient and the modern Greek, as well as with the Greek of 
the New Testament — and he says it is the same Greek. JBap- 
tidzo means, in the New Testament, what it means in Josephus, 
Strabo or Plutarch. 

Argument from John's Baptism. 

1. John's Baptism was by Immersion Only. — In opening 

the New Testament we find the Harbinger of the Messiah, ush- 
ering in the Gospel Dispensation as the morning star announ- 



Mode of Baptism. 45 

ces the king of day. He was the first to administer Christian 
baptism by the authority of the King of Zion, who afterwards 
fixed this rite by His own royal enactment, as a permanent 
ordinance in His church forever, having received it himself at 
the hands of John. 

I therefore propose to inquire for the usus loquendi of the 
only term employed by John himself, and by Christ and the 
Evangelists when speaking of this rite, or in recording the 
circumstances of its administration during John's ministry. 

To assist my hearers to follow me with ease, I shall raise two 
simple questions which, by the record before me, can be 
answered by a child of twelve years as well as by the pro- 
foundest scholar of earth, or the Judge of the Supreme Court. 

Less than one hundred verses in the records of the Evange- 
lists, contain all the references to John's baptism and ministry, 
that bear upon these questions. 

Let us have constantly before our minds, the two important 
rules of interpretation, to wit: 

1. That the jprimary or literal meaning is the only true one, 
and that we must adopt this in all cases, unless the sense posi- 
tively forbids. 

Mark which one of us, throughout this discussion, will be 
compelled to violate this rule to sustain his practice. 

2. The other rule is : " We are not at liberty to afiix an 
arbitrary sense to a word, nor can the meaning of a word be 
diverse or multifarious at the same time." 

This means that no one Greek word, as baptidzo, can mean 
to sprinkle, to pour water upon, to pop and to dip a person 
into — they being words of diverse significations. If it means 
sprinkle, it cannot mean to dip, or immerse. jtTotice who 
thus confounds them. 

It should be understood bv all, that some two hundred and 
sixty-four years ago, this version of the Sacred Scripture was 
made by order of King James of England, from the Hebrew 
and the Greek languages,by a Company of Pedobaptist scholars. 
There were sundry words they did not translate at all into Eng- 
lish, and Baptists claim that some words and phrases they mis- 



46 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

translated, so as not to injure, but rather to favor the practices 
of the Church of England; and thus, after finishing their 
work, they congratulate themselves to the Kiug for what they 
had done: 8ee Int. to Kmy James' Blbte. 

Ed. Beecher, on p. 5, uf his work, Tne Iinport of Baptism, 

says of the translators" treatment or bapttzo: 

'' At the time of tLie trciiislatiou uX" the Bible, a controversy had arisen 
as it regards the import of the word, so that, although it was conceded to 
have an import in the original, yet it was impossible to assign to it in 
Pvngiisli any meaning, ivlthoat seenilny to take suLes i?i the cmtroversy then 
jicudi g. 

" Accordingly, in order to take ntitner side^ they did not attempt to give 
liie sense of tiie term in asignihcant t^ngiisn word, but merely transferred 
tae word baptidz , w^ith a sliglit akeratioii of termination, to our language. 
Tiie consequence was that it did not exhibit its original significancy to 
tiie mind of the Engiisii reader, or indeed any signiiicancy, except what 
was derived from its application to designate an external visible rite. In 
short, it became merely tlie name of a I'lte, and had a usage strictly tech- 
nical, and lost to the ear whatever siginiicance it originally had." 

Baptists also claim that they liave not dealt fairly with " e?z," 

and "6Y5," when the true and proper translation of these 

[iropositions would have favored immersion. 

With these explanations, let us examine the record given of 
John's ministry. I open to the 3d chapter of Matthew. 
Read : 

"In ( CM) those days came John the Baptist, preaching (en) in the 
wilderness of Judea." 

The hrst word I would call your attention to, is the prepo- 
sition ''e/i," which occurs twice in this lirst verse, and 
which the translators very correctly translated ia^ which, 
according to all Grreek lexicons, is \i^ prlmavg and usual signi- 
fication. It as often means in, in Greek, as in, means in^ in 
English ; and m, as often means into in Greek as into means 
into^ in Eriglish, and therefore all lexicons give in as the 
primary and usual signification of " en," and " into," as the 
literal definition of eis. 

Let us read on, noting the use of these prepositions, and 
baptizo : 

"And were baptized of him {en) in Jordan, confessing their sins." — 
Matthew Hi, 6. 

And were all baptized of him "m the Jordan.' ' 



Mode of Baptism. 47 

Now mark, the people were baptized in the river Jordan — 
not the river baptized upon them. The question before us 
now, is: What did John do to the people in the river Jordan ? 
This Greek verb with an English ending does not tell us. 

The matter in dispute between Elder Ditzler and myself is 
— if he will presume to dispute about this case— whether Jolii! 
sprinkled or poured the people into the river, or sprinkled or 
poured the river upon them, or immersed them in the river. 

The first, you all know, he could not have done, for while 
you can sprinkle water or sand and pour out any liquid, yon 
cannot sprinkle or pour out men and women. We are nol 
allowed to suppose that he sprinkled or poured the river upon 
them, for the record forbids it; the people is the object of the 
verb baptized, and not the river or the waters of it. Immerse 
alone will make sense, and the context demands it, and so we 
are compelled to adopt it. The people were put into the river. 

It is worthy of note that en is found eighteen times in this chap- 
ter, and they translated it in every instance m, except the two 
places where it refers to baptism! Why was this? Is it 
impossible to use the primary meaning here? Does the sense 
or the context forbid it? I affirm that the primary meaning 
will not only make sense, but that the context demands it, and 
therefore translate it as it is in all the older versiovs^ \\\q\\x(\\w';x 
even the Catholic — in water — in the Holy Spirit and in fire. — 
[ Time out.~\ 



48 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Brother Moderators : — The Doctor seems to misunderstand 
the point I made this morning. I now refer to it because I 
want you to keep in mind what I said and what I meant. 

After animadverting somewhat loosely on what I said, he 
goes «^n to state that, according to me, people were, until 
within the last forty years or so, utterly mistaken in regard to 
the meaning of Greek terms. My statement implied nothing 
of the sort. I guarded against that. What I did say was, 
that the process of tracing up the primary or original sense in 
which words were employed is a perfectly modern science. 
Our advantage, therefore, over those that preceded us is, that 
we have a more certain and satisfactory means of determining 
what is the pri/vari/ meaning of a word. We are now able to 
show by what law of science two meanings may be derived 
from the primary. That point he has not touched, nor ever 
will touch; never, because it cannot be touched. The argu- 
ment we made can never be touched while the world stands. 
Did not my worthy brother take up the question of primary 
meaning? Did he not take the position that the meaning, 
primary and secondary, must be found in the lexicons? The 
context must determine in whicli sense a word is used. We 
have to find what the authors themseh'es intended by the 
terms they employed. Moses Stuart leaves the question in 
entire doubt, as to the primary meaning of ba2:>to and bapUdzo, 
saying it was uncertain. So everybody else leaves it that does 
not recognize that law of scientific investigation to which I 
have referred. The first meaning set down by lexicographers 
is the meaning that appears at first sight of the occurrences, 
they happen to have the current meaning, but this is by no 
means the primary meaning. 

Now, I appeal to every man in this house; to the ignorant 
as well as the educated, whether my worthy opponent has 



Mode of Baptism. 49 

uttered a single word, or adduced a solitary fact, to show that 
he has any scientific ground for his theory that dip or immerse 
is the primary meaning of baj^tizo ? To show what its primary 
meaning is, a man has to trace up the word and find what its 
first meaning was at a period no less remote than 1500 years 
before Christ. Primary ; what does that mean? Does it not 
mean the first? Then, as baptizo, in the sense of immerse, is 
never found in any Greek writer until about 165 years before 
Christ, and as this was among the latest meanings the word 
came to have, how absurd to call it its primary meaning. 
That the current meaning is the primary one, I know Baptists 
all assume; but there is no science in it; such an assumption 
is in utter contravention of the recognized laws of philoligical 
investigation. To come down fourteen or fifteen hundred 
years in the history of a language, and then to seize on some 
new meaning that has been engrafted on an old word, and 
then to claim that this is its primary meaning, is an absurdity 
too transparent to require refutation. 

As to Sophocles, he treats only of Iron Age Greek — is not 
an authority in the learned world — and is not to be com- 
pared with any one of the greater lexicographers we gave, 
among whom were native Greeks also — Gazes, e. g., giving 
poured upon, while Sophocles says, '^ perform ablution, bathed 
in tears — Gr. baptized, dakrusi with tears ... to baptize- — 
]l!Tew Testament everywhere. 

Dr. G. started on philology, and to our amazement cut 
across for Jordan at once, abandoning all his line. I'll get 
there in time. 

As we have nothing further to answer, we resume where we 
left off". The great issue on this question, from the stand-point of 
our opponent, turns upon the primary meaning of baptizo, 
which involves the science of language — -fundamental princi- 
ples of philology. Hence we resume where we stopped. We 
were showing that great numbers of words that primarily 
meant to sprinkle, to pour, to moisten — where it is by sprink- 
ling — came to mean all that baptizo ever means. On the 
contrary, no word in existence that properly or primarily 

4 



50 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

means to immerse ever comes to mean what all agree hajptizo 
does mean — have its applications. 

2. Katantaoo: "To sprinkle or pour, sprinkle upon, to pour 
upon." See Passow, Stephanus, Galen, Dunbar and Picker- 
ing: •' To pour upon, to bathe with water, to soothe with elo- 
quence, to overwhelm with or pour out ridicule upon one." 

Notice well this word of effusion. It covers a number of 
meanings in baptizo; among them to pour ridicale upon — i. e,, 
pour a torrent of abuse upon one. I^otice the overwhelm 
from pour upon. 

3. Brecho. This word is also doubly important because two 
native Greek lexicographers define both bapto and baptizo with 
it, while the learned Schneider, in his lexicon, puts it as the 
general equivalent of baptizo as the general import. 

Passow: "To wet, moisten, sprinkle; passive, to be wet, 
receive moisture, be wet with rain, to rain ; to tipple, be drunk, 
overfill with wine, drunk, pour upon, overwhelm." 

Pickering : " Moisten, wet, water, bedew, sprinkle, etc., rain, 
shower, wet, soak, drink." Yet embrecho is by the lexicons, 
dip, immerse repeatedly. Stephanus, intingere, immergere, dip, 
immerse. Passow, to soak, dip in. 

4. Deuo, endeuo; madidus would show like results. So the 
Latin madeo, madidus, wet, moist, soft, intoxicated, drunkened, 
soaked, dipped, dyed. Bullion's Latin lexicon, 1869. See 
White's late one also. Tingo, Greek tengo, would show same 
principles. Zarak/\n Arabic; sprinkle, besprinkle, then color, 
dye. Mattatha, moisten with ointment or paint, perfuse, etc., 
then immerse one's self in water, immersion. In a word, 
words never begin with immerse as their primary meaning, 
and then come to mean what all parties admit bapto and baptizo 
mean. Such a process is wholly opposed to all the laws of 
language. 

On the contrary, all the laws and the whole science of lan- 
guage show conclusively that the only method by which the 
facts, viz., the phenomena of the facts of bapto and baptizo, 
can be harmonized, is by starting with sprinkle as its primary 
force. We have thus demonstrated our third, fourth and fifth 
prnpositions. 



Mode of Baptism. 51 

Let us now see if these plienomena of language do not liolcl 
good as applied to the actual facts as farther discovered in the 
earlier Greek. We appeal to the earlier Greek classics. It is 
in vain that a Casaubon, or Yossius, Beza, etc., should appeal 
to a Plutarch, or a Polybius, fifteen to eighteen hundred years 
from the birth and spoken form, and a thousand from the 
written form in which the Greek appeared, to find out thence 
what were primary meanings, when even they never dreamed 
of comparative philology and great underlying laws by which 
word-building went on, and meanings developed. Their 
opinion is nothing here. 

We sec that the lexicons all stop with Polybius as the earli- 
est writer that uses baptizo in the sense of immerse. He also 
uses it in other senses. They give him also as the earliest using 
it literally. He flourished some 165 years B. C. They cite 
Plato, born B. C. 429, as the earliest for a metaphorical mean- 
ing, he using it three times, always metaphorically ; twice for 
intoxicate, rendered "overwhelm" by Conant, Carson, A. 
Campbell, etc., always. Is this science? Is it philology? 
Polybius, living in the decline of the iron age of the Greek — 
Plutarch, Joseph us — who will risk his reputation now by say- 
ing such is the process by which we are to discover the laws 
of language? Such empiricism is gone forever. The method 
of science requires that we collect all the earliest cases of the 
word to be found, record their dates, discover the respective 
meanings, literal or metaphorical, then apply the inductive 
method, and discover the truth of the phenomena, the law^s 
that will harmonize all the facts. First, get the facts. Then 
no law is correct, no method safe, that will not explain the 
facts, assign a why, how. We have already made much head- 
way. We will test the matter further. 

1. The first Greek that has yet been found to use baptidzo 
is Pindar, born B. C. 522 years. He uses it but once in a 
metaphorical sense tor slander, abuse, the rage and vitupera- 
tion of his enemies and its impotence. " For, as when the 
rest of the net is toiling deep in the sea, I, as a cork, am 
above the net, unbaptized of the sea — i. e., by its raging, 
dashing waters." Literally, I am unbaptized of its salt water 
— that is, their ra2:e no more hurts him than the sea water. 



52 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

with all its salt, which is fearfully biting, hurts or affects the 
cork. Some might render, overwhelm the cork. 

2. Aristophanes, born B. C. 450, uses it next, once. He 
uses it metaphorically also, thus: "For he is praised," 
?ays he, " because he baptized (ehaptisen) the stewards," 
poured a torrent of abuse upon them. 

3. Plato, born B. C. 429, uses it three times, metaphori- 
cally each time. Once, when Clinias, a youth, was baptized 
with qu'^stions— questions put to him so rapidly that he be- 
came overwhelmed or confused with them. In the other two 
cases, the parties were " baptized with wine; " rendered over- 
whelm by all immersionist writers. 

4. Alcibiades, born B. C. 400, alluding to the offensive and 
opprobrious epithets applied to him by a comedian in the play 
called Baptse, saj^s : " You (bajyfes, bapto, root of baptizo,) be- 
spatted [or aspersed] me with [the abusive epithets in] your 
play, but I, baptizing thee {baptizo) [as] with waves of the sea, 
will destroy thee with streams more bitter." 

5. Demosthenes, born B. C. 385, referring to the relative 
abusive powers of Philip and his enemies, the orator says : 
'' ^N'ot the speakers, for they know how to baptize with this 
fellow ;" they can match him in foul words or tierce abuse. 

We have enough now to make a pause. My worthy and 
distinguished brother has risked everything on the primary 
meaning of baptizo ; and immerse, he claims, is its primary 
meaning. But take the lexicons. Carson, Booth and others, 
failing to find support for their theory from the lexicons, re- 
ject them. I accept the lexicons. Their laws of philology, 
however, I do not accept. But we take their meanings and 
show that these are explained by those passages in the clas- 
sics that give these meanings. ^N'ow, my brother gives a law 
of language, that anything or person, to be sprinkled, must be 
scattered in drops. If so, then the idea is, that in Hebrew, 
to be sprinkled means to be scattered in drops. ITow, let 
us see how this canon of criticism will work. I take the fifty- 
first Psalm, ninth verse : " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall 
be clean." In the Syriac, Greek and Latin, rusi^ ranteeis 'me, 
asperges me — it is sprinkle me, etc. Scatter me in drops ? 
No, no. I could give you quotations in Greek and Latin in 



Mode of Baptism. 53 

whicli, though water is the element and sprinkling the Tnode, 
yet the person or object affected by it is said to be sprinkled. 
In Plutarch, the priests commanded the people entering the 
temple rantidzein seautous — to sprinkle themselves. 

There are many words meaning to sprinkle, some of which 
mean in Hebrew, Greek, etc., to scatter, disperse ; never 
moisten, wet, stain. Many others never mean scatter, disperse, 
but from sprinkle (of liquids) mean to moisten, wet, bedew, 
stain, color, all which take the dii^ect accusative aiid no inter- 
vening preposition, such as upon, on, etc., and such is bapto 
and baptidzo. 

So, Heb. ix. 19, 21 : Moses sprinkled the book, the people, 
the tabernacle, and the vessels of the ministry. Did he scat- 
ter them in drops ? In all languages, many, very many words 
occur meaning sprinkle that mean to moisten, wet, color, dip, 
immerse — all taking the accusative as the direct object of the 
verb, which forever destroys the Doctor's position. 

Now notice what my worthy brother has said about our 
English version of the T^^ew Testament. He seems to think 
that the translators have not done justice to the immersion- 
ist idea involved^in the Greek particle en; that, in fact, they 
have allowed their predilection for sprinkling as the mode of 
baptism to control them in rendering that term into English, 
as they have done, by ivith. The Doctor claims that en means 
in. Well, I admit that this is its more general meaning when 
used of a local relation, but it is not so in any of these cases ; 
but does it not also mean with f Can these translators be sup- 
posed to have been opposed to immersion, when they had all 
of them been baptized by dipping? Luther, in his German 
translation of the 'New Testament, renders en by mit, with. So 
a large number of versions have done, as well as six other 
English versions. 

6. We have given you every occurrence of the word down to 
this period. The next who uses it is the great Stagirite, 
Aristotle, and, in a literal sense, I am glad to say, and hence 
we pause on these metaphorical uses of baptizo in the classics. 

Shakespeare, Bunyan, and the mass of people use Aie fol- 
lowing terms in the connections above ; " Those haughty 



54 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

words of her's bespattered me," etc. Banyan, " foul aspersion." 
A. Campbell and Rice, "foul aspersion." Debate, 645 &o 
Dryden, W. Scott. We use " base aspersion," " foul asper- 
sion," for such abuse. But aspersion is sprinkling, means to 
sprinkle. Pindar and the ancients used the word sprinkle 
also for praising, at times : " sprinkle with eulogies," 

A striking ease occurs in Atheneus, a later Greek : 

"You seem to me, O guests, to be strangely flooded (kataentlesthas) with 
vehement words, while also waiting to be baptized {bebaptisthai)^ flooded 
(or drenched) with undiluted wine." 

Notice here, first : katantleo meaning to flood, and played 
upon by the wit as of a like sense with baptize ; waiting to be 
baptized with wine, you are busy. He does not repeat bap- 
tize, but a word of same force there, katantleo, flooded, over- 
whelmed ; overwhelming othei^ with words, some would pre- 
fer ; waiting to be so with wine. But the word here ren- 
dered by Conant, the Baptist, " flooded," used in same sense 
with baptizOj primarily means to sprinkle, to pour. This no 
one will den}^, we presume. This gives us another illustra- 
tion of philology as well as of the word's meaning. 

As yet now, first, baptizo never yet means "to immerse, etc. 
Second, it implies aftusion ; was based upon that idea in its 
metaphorical uses every time, save in Plato. In him, once it 
is based on that evidently, in the other two cases it is to be 
drunk. But in Hebrew, Arabic, Latin, etc., words primarily 
meaning to moisten, when it is by tears, rain,dew, to sprinkle, 
etc., we saw come to mean to get or make drunk; not words 
primarily meaning to immerse. Hence, these two uses point 
to sprinkle as the primary meaning. 

Let us now see in what sense Aristotle, born B. C. 380 
years, the most learned Greek that ever lived, used it. He, 
too, used it only once in all his voluminous works. He tells 
us of '^ certain places full of rushes and seaweed which, when 
it is ebb-tide, are not baptized {mce baptidzesthai), overflowed, 
but at full tide are overflowed [katakludzesthai)^ As A. 
Campbell and M. Stuart tell us, these two words are used in 
precisely the same sens-e here. 



Mode of Baptism. 55 

We have, then, the most importaiit data possible bore 
given by the most profound thinkers and scholars of the 
world. We have, 

1. The first literal occurrence of bajptizo in the world. 

2. It does not here mean to immerse, or dip, or plunge. 

3. It is the application of the element, the baptizing ele- 
ment, to the stationary, immovable object baptized. 

But in that other word, katakludzo^ equivalent to bajptizo , we 
have philological light. It is compounded of kata, a preposi- 
tion. Another later Greek uses perikludzo, also, to express the 
act of classic baptism. So, let us look at it closely. Pri- 
marily, kludzo means to bedash, besprinkle, or insprinkle with 
water, implying more or less of force. Our word clyster is 
the noun from it. Budaeus, Stephanus, and the Gk)sses, all 
give sprinkle for perikludzo ; thus periklusmati aspergine, verb; 
aspergo, per/undo. See Stephanus. 

Passow : wash, bedash, wet, etc. [See first reply.] 
We see here, then, that the way by which a word that pri- 
marily applies to inspersions, aspersions, comes to mean all 

that haptizo does. 

Thus, you see, there is no meaning in baptizo but that is 
promptly, easily and scientifically explained, illustrated over 
and again on this basis. But start with immerse, and not a 
point in it can be explained, by any rule or law that will stand 
the test. Then, the great facts, the essential facts, of its 
meanings cannot be explained at all. 

1. You have to travel centuries down before you arrive at 
a literal meaning at all. 

2. When vou come to that it is against vou. 

3. You then have to travel on till you reach Polybius, 
Plutarch, Josephus, etc., to mean immerse. 

4. Then you have a body of meanings in those writers and 
others that show immerse could not have been its earlier 
or primary meaning. It now means beside, sprinkle, pour, 
wash, intoxicate, overflow, overwhelm, immerse. 

1. But wash is njdcr tliaji immerse, as a meaning of baptizo, 



56 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

by over a century or so. Hence, wash is not derived from 
immerse, as a meaning of baptizo. 

2. 'No v^ord on earth primarily meaning to immerse n. 

to wash. But baptizo does come to mean to wash. Hene 
immerse never was its primary meaning. 

3. Baptizo means, derivatively, to overflow. No word pri- 
marily and properly meaning to immerse, ever means to over- 
flow. Therefore baptizo never meant, primarily, to immerse. 

But words primarily meaning to sprinkle, vast numbers of 
them, do come to mean to overflow, and to wash, to cleanse ; 
and it is the rule, the habitual law of language. Hence, it is 
certain baptizo primarily meant to sprinkle. 

So we could apply the other meanings of baptizo^ but tbis 
is enough now. 



Mode of Baptism. 57 



DR. GRAVES' THIRD SPEECH. 

Mr. President : We are getting on very pleasantly : we are 
agreeing. He is just yielding to my position. He admits that 
the primary meaning of en is in, and of m, into. His lexicons 
all confirm this meaning. It is not a question as to whether 
lexicographers be mistaken about the primary meaning of this 
or that term; this is not a question to be discussed at all. He 
is a day or two ahead of time. Instead of following me, he is 
leading. He takes a stretch first in this direction and then in 
that, just like the hunted fox, whose instincts prompt him to 
^ like expedient as a trick for putting his pursuers 'oft' his 
track. I don't say my opponent is a fox, but only that in this 
particular, he is certainly following out the fox's tactics. JN^ow 
I want to call your attention to the very novel and ingenious 
method by which my opponent deduces from baptizo the mean- 
ing, " to get drunkJ^ He says that two native Greek lexico- 
graphers define ''bapto'^ and baptizo by '-^ embreeho f^ but then, 
according to the most eminent of our lexicographers ' emhrecho " 
means " to pour upon^^ " to moisten,^^ " to soak,^^ and " to get drunk.'' 
Now then, as baptizo means embrecho, and this again means 
"to get drunk," therefore this is one of the meanings of 
baptizo I According to this method of dealing with language, 
sad havoc may be made with the meaning of terms, and any 
sense that a man's interest or caprice may dictate can be put 
upon them. Is there a man, woman or child here, that does 
not know what it is to eat? I^ow among the definitions that 
Webster ijives of the word "^0 eat'' one is "to devour." ISTow 
Addison, in speaking of a glutton at a feast, says "he devoured 
it with his eyes." We all understand the expression, and no- 
body supposes that to eat means to look earnestly upon an ob- 
ject, but this is the sense in which '^devour" is here used. Do( s 
looking upon an object then, mean to cat it? Most assuredly 
it does, if Eld. Ditzler's principles of philology are good for 
anything; for to devour means to look intently, and therefore 



58 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I can eat him up in a moment ! But is there anything fair 
and square about such statements and such arguments as these? 
I hold that they are utterly unworthy of my opponent's schol- 
arship. When we come to it, we will show that all these 
meanings he calls "primary," are no meanings at all. He has 
now fairly and squarely to show that the primary meaning of 
the word hajptidzo is to sprinkle, or to admit that it is not. 
This, mark you, is the real issue. 

• 

Argument. 

Heturning to m}^ argument, let us notice the history of the 

Savior's baptism as given by Matthew: 

"I indeed baptize you in water," etc., "but He shall bap- 
tize you in the H0I3' Spirit and in fire." I distinctly claim 
that en should be translated in in this verse, in accordance 
with oar rule, because it is its primary meaning, and this 
sense alone will agree with the context^ for in verses 5 and 6 it 
distinctly says the people "were all baptized m the river 
Jordan " b}' John. Consequently baptized in the ^^'ater of it, 
and the translators were compelled so to translate it. I read 
the record of the Savior's baptism. Mat. m, 13-17. 

How was Christ baptized? He came from Gallilee to Jor- 
dan, and like all whom John baptized, was baptized in the 
river Jordan, and "came up," the translators are frank to say, 
" out of the water." What did John do to him, is claimed by 
some to be a question. I can but believe that every candid 
Christian mind has within and for itself decided it already. 

But let us examine Mark's record of these transactions. 
Let us first notice how Mark uses the preposition en^ and how 
our translators have translated it. In the first chapter, mis used 
twelve times and translated properly m, in every place 6'a:cpp^ as 
in Mattheio ivhere baptism is referred to, which would be a palpa- 
ble contradiction ot what he states in the tith verse of the same 
chapter, where he explicitly says '^ -were baptized {en to Jordane, 
potamo) in the river of Jordan.^' 

I appeal to eveiw fair minded person and to every child to 
decide if the translators were not in dntv bound to have 



Mode of Baptism. 59 

translated en by its primary sense here ? "I have baptized you 

in water, but He shall baptize you in the Holy Ghost." 

I read here again, the history of the baptism of Christ: 

" And it came to pass in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of 
GaUlee, aud was baptized of John in Jordan. And straightway coming 
up out of the water, he saw the heavens opened, and the Spirit hke a 
dove descended upon him : and there came a voice from heaven, saying, 
Thou art my beloved Son, in whom T am \vell pleased. And immediately 
the Spirit driveth Him into the wilderness," — Mark i, 9-12. 

That He was baptized in the river of Jordan, I can't think 
any honest man ever doubted, for the Holy Spirit expressly 
says so — eis ton Jordanen. But what act did John perform upon 
Jesus, is to be dbtermined. Did he sprinkle, or pour, or pop 
water upon him — for all these have their advocates — or did ho 
immerse or bury him in the river? The record positively 
forbids the first three, while it admits and positively demands 
the last one. 

Let us examine the record that Luke gives of the baptism 
of John. You can all read the 3d chapter to the 23d verse. 
The first thing we notice is Luke's use of, en. It is found nine 
times in this chapter, and in every instance our translators 
have rendered it in, by its primary meaning, as they should. 
Luke does not circumstantially record the baptism of the 
people or of Jesus; but we learn that the people and Jesus 
were "baptized" and not the water — whicli is imjtortant. 
And we notice again that the translators translate, hudatt, and 
pneumati, which are in the dative here, without the preposition 
en expressed, with water and with the Holy Spirit; thus open- 
ing the way to the plausible theory that he put the wsiter upon 
them in some place and in some form, rather than put the 
people into the water or river, as Matthew and Mark have 
already told us. But the English reader need not be at a loss, 
for he knows that the indefinite must be determined by the 
definite. If Mark expressly tells us that persons were bap- 
tized by John into the water, and Luke should tell us that he 
baptized the people, but should not tell us in what, we would 
. know from Mark it was in water. While every scholar knows 
that this is the dative of place, or element, aii'l thnt. L'il:o 
often uses the dative without a prc[)osition an.^worlng to the 



6o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

question, whereinf Which use is recoguized by Grammarians, 
and I will settle the issue here by examples. 

1. Taute te nukte — in that night. And 

2. Te hemera ekeine — in the same day. — Acts ii, 17, 34, 41. 

3. Te proseuche kai te deasei — in pra3'er and supplication. — 
Acts i, 14. For en te proseuche. — Acts ii, 46. 

4. They continued steadfast, dedaske, in the doctrine of 
the Apostles, etc. 

5. Emmenien te pistei — to continue in the faith. For en te 
pistei, see Romans iv, 20. 

6. Walking in fear — te phobo, for en, etc, — Acts ix, 31. See 
1st Pet. iv, 3. 

7. Zeon te piieumati, fervent in spirt. Acts xviii, 25. See let 
Cor. xiv, 20. 

8. Te idia dialekte lalounten — speak in his own language. 
Acts ii, 6-8. 

9. Poreuensthai tais hodois autin — to walk in tbeir own ways. . 

In all these utterances we have the dative of place like hudati, 
without the en, and they each answer to the question ivherein? 
Ans. in the way,'e7i the water. Matthise says: The dative 
without the preposition en, is used in definitions of place in 
answer to the questions "wherein?" and "when?" 

W(3 will examine John, the last witness. Let us also notice 
how he uses the preposition " en," and how faithfully our 
translators have reiKleredit. Will you open and read the first 
33 verses of the first chapter of John. Here we find en used 
seven times in these 33 verses, and in every place it is trans- 
lated in except the two where it is followed by water! How is 
this ? Can Elder Ditzler tell ? 

The Evangelist introduces the Harbinger as setting forth his 
own mission in his own words. In doing so, the latter declares 
as plainly as an}^ Greek that ever lived could have declared — 
he declares it as plainly as any living scholar can to-day affirm 
it in Greek — that he was sent to baptize "?>?. (not with)wsiter" 
And he hence declares as explicitly and with the very words a 
Greek would have been compelled to use to say it, that he did 
baptize " in water," " en hiidatV^ And yet, in every instance 
where baptism is referred to,- they translate "m " with water! 



Mode of Baptism, 6i 

The honest scholarship of the world has protested against it, and 
I am gratified to learn that the Eno;lish and American Commis- 
slon of scholars now engaged in making a new version, have 
translated en hudati in all these passages, in water — the Eng- 
lish agreeing to place it in the margin, as the literal meaning, 
while the Americans want it in the text. The rest of this 
Evangelist'^ record that refers to John, will be found in 
chap, iii, 22-24. The important statement bearing upon these 
questions is the 23d verse. "And John was also baptizing in 
Kiion near to Salim, because there was much water there, and 
they (the people) came and were baptized," — not sprinkled 
or poured or popped upon! 

We have another important fact stated, i. e., that John, when 
he removed from Beth-ab-a-ra, the ford-house at the ford of 
the Jordan, perhaps, as some say, because the water had 
bL'Come too shallow,* went to Enon to baptize, because 
there was much ivater there, (jpolla hudata) deep water, as 
opposed to olUga hudata — shallow water. Why did he go 
there? I^ot to sprinkle, not to moisten or to pour, etc., 
beyond the possibility of a doubt or cavil. He needed much 
or deep water to baptize in — not with. 

Bat John did not leave us in doubt as to the action he per- 
formed for baptism, though the translators seemed disposed to. 
lie tells us that he performed the same act upon his subjects, 
as to the river Jordan, that Christ will upon the finally 
impenitent, as to the lake of fire. He mentions three bap- 
tisms, and describes them in precisely the same words; con- 
sequently, the common reader rightly concludes the action or 
the effect in the three cases must be the same. He says: '^I 
baptize (en) in loater. He will baptize you [en) in the Holy 
Spirit, and he will baptize you (some of you) in fire." John's 
own explanation of this, clearly, to our minds, fixes the bap- 
tism, of fire to be "the unquenchable fire" into which John 
said the chaff" and the barren trees would be ultimately cast, 
for he, Christ, was to burn them up and cast into fire. This is 
the undoubted paraphrase: "lam baptizing some of you in 
this river, but there are two other baptisms, one of which 

"•• Smith's Bible Dictionary. 



62 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the Coming One will administer to all who hear me. He will 
baptize some of you in the blessed influences of his Holy 
Spirit, and some of you — those who reject him — he will cast 
into the everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." 
iN'ow the baptism in fire, will unquestionably be an immers- 
ion. Therefore both, the baptism in the Holy Spirit and in 
water, were immersions. This conclusion cannot be resisted 
by the human mind, whatever seeming objections may be 
alleged. Thus John answers our questions. 

But Christ explained the action of his own baptism, when 
he demanded it at the hands of John, and then and there for- 
ever fixed its design. He had appointed baptism to be into 
repentance, and also into the remission of sins. It was from 
these very facts a declarative rite, while it was designed to 
be a declaration of this, it was also designed to symbolize 
how these were to be procured for his people. To procure 
the remission of sins for His people, i. e., to redeem them 
from the penalty of their transgressions, and so bring in 
an everlasting righteousness for them, was the object of 
his incarnation. The angel said: "His name shall be 
called Jesus because he shall save his people from their 
sins." His whole work on earth had reference to the remis- 
sion of sins. He had taken our sins upon him. "He made 
Himself to be sin for us." As a sin-laden sacrifice he came to 
John that he might symbolize before the ej-es of angels and 
men, the great acts he must undergo for the remission of the sins 
of his people, and secure for them that " all righteousness " they 
must have to appear before the Father in peace and joy. He 
came to picture by this rite what He must undergo to secure 
this righteousness — to fvLi&iX figuratively — the reality that He 
must undergo upon the Cross and at the Sepulchre. 

Christ's baptism diflers from our own in this, his was a 
prophecy, a fore-showing, ours is a pointing back, a memorial 
of that righteousness which Christ fulfilled for us, and on 
which we rely for "remission of sins," — the ultimate abol- 
ishment and removal of their penalty, for we are all still 
suffering the penalty of sin. Christ could not thus have 
fulfilled all righteousness — figuratively — could not have rep- 



to 



Mode of Baptism. 63 

resented the Lhree facts of his Gospel, in his baptism, without 
going down into the water, being overwhelmed by it and 
rising again out of it, and therefore his baptism must have 
been an immersion in water. If so, there can be no Christian 
or Scriptural baptism without a burial^ a planting in the like- 
ness of the resurrection of Christ. Primitive Christians were 
therefore said to have died with Christ, to have been buried 
with Christ and to have risen with Christ; and all this they 
symbolized in their baptism, as we should in ours and must if 
we would be baptized with Christ. . ' 

These three facts constitute the rocky basis of the whole 

Gospel of remission. Paul thus taught the Corinthians : 

" Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the Gospel which I preached 
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand ; by which 
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless 
ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that 
which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the 
Scriptures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day 
according to the Scriptures : and that he was seen of Cephas, then of the 
twelve." — 1 Cor. xv, 1-5. 

Christ shadowed forth his death when he sank under the 
waters of his baptism and was buried! "And that he rose 
again" — his emergence from that grave of water was the 
likeness and prophecy of his own resurrection from the tomb 
of Joseph, for the justification of all who believe on him. 
He satisfied the penalty of the law for them all, and now as 
Prince and Savior, can give both repentance and remission of 
sins to Israel.— [ Time ouf] 



64 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S THIRD REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — In my last speech, as the Presi- 
dent's hammer fell, I was remarking upon the translators of 
James' version, and the way in which they had performed 
their task. There was no possibility of bias in their work. 
They were iramersionists. They were opposed to affusion. 
Let us test the matter. 

1. A. Campbell's Christian Baptism, 140 : 

" The translators of the common version were all, or nearly all, gen- 
uine Episcopalians, and, at the time they made the version, were accus- 
tomed to use a liturgy, which made it the minister's duty, in the sacra- 
ment of baptism, to take the child and dip it in the water contained in 
the font. I have seen copies of James' version, printed in 1611, which 
contain the Psalms and service of the church, in which frequent allu- 
sions are made to immersion^ all indicative of the fact that it was then 
regarded as the primz^z'fe and iwoper baptism ; consequently, these 
translators accepted the king's appointment and restrictions, to retain 
baptize and baptism rather than translate them, and on no occasion 
favored the innovation of sprinkling, by any rendering, or note mar- 
ginal in that translation.^'' 

Every word of this is true. 

Summing all up, Wall agrees that they did not carry " the 
practice against the rubric " till Dr. Whittaker gave his 
powerful influence that way," 1624. Wall, ii, 581, note. 
After this, affusion began to prevail, long after James' version 
was Gowpleted. Dr. Conant, 138-9, (Statutes of Eng., 1662) 
sustains this. M. Stuart, 152-3, and Introduction by Dr. J., 
R. Graves, 24, proves A. Campbell's facts to be true. 

Tyndale's version, 1526, settles James. 

Tyndale was an immersionist, as A. Campbell's Christian 
Baptism, 140, Conant, Graves, Brents 337, all show by quota- 
tions. 

1. Here, then. Wall, A. Campbell, Conant, Graves, Stuart, 
all show that James' version was by out and out immer- 
sionists. ^ 



Mode of Baptism. 65 

2. They show that it is based on Tyndale's, whose ver- 
sion was published 1526 by an absolute immersionist, and 
immersion (dipping) continued to be practiced as the mode for 
one hundred years later, when atfusiou began to " gradually " 
.come in — after 1624, yet so little prevailed as to leave dipping 
the legal ascendant as late as 1662, and so forcible as to com- 
pel Wesley, as late as 1736, in a British colony (Ga.) to refuse 
to baptize a child by affusion without the usual certificate 
that it was too delicate to be dipped. 

Hence, it is perfectly evident that not only were they rot 
partial to our side, but that the}^ favored dipping whereever 
they could, and rendered en^with because candor and the facts 
compelled such a rendering. In this they are sustained by all 
the best versions of antiquity, Jerome alone excepted, and 
by all the best modern versions, from 1522 down, and by 
Beza and a number of Latin versions. Luther, who held the 
child in his hands and baptized it said : " Ich taufe euch mil 
wasser'^ — I baptize you with water, and so he always renders it 
in his version. So the Italian, French, Lusitanian, etc. The 
partiality of James' version for dipping is seen in many ren- 
derings — of Christ going up "out of the water," where 
Oonant, the Baptist Union version, Anderson, Wilson, all im- 
mersionists, are compelled to render it " from the water," apo 
never meaning out of, and cannot apply where there was an 
emergence out of the water. They render wash, {rachats, Greek 
louo,) bathed many times — a medical use of water, to soothe 
inliamed or heated parts, whereas, all know the wash of the 
Pentateuch was purely for cleansing purposes, real or ritual, 
and bathe is a false rendering to cover up the truth. 

, On en let us now be definite and careful. 

In a local sense en, we are willing to admit, quite answers to 
onr in, as used by us. But, it is often used where it locally 
even does not involve the idea of being all in an object. We 
say a child is in the water, a horse is in the creek, &c, where 
its body is not at all in the water, much less under it. - 

But it is where en indicates instrumentality that we are 

now concerned. They were baptized with water, with the 

Spirit, with fire. These were the elements, instrumentalities 

5 



66 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

by which baptism was affected. Does en indicate this in Scrip- 
ture ? We read : " Kule with (en) a rod of iron." " Speak 
{en) with tongues." " Descended (en) with the voice," etc. 
'' Anoint (en) with oil." ISTow, this will specially show 
whether I or Dr. G. is right. In Ezekiel xvi, 4, 9 : " Then 
washed I thee en with water ... I anointed thee en with 
oiL" This form occurs oyer forty times from Ex. xxix. 2, 40, 
to !N'um. XXXV. 28; twelve times in one chapter, Num. vii., en 
with, every time. Now, how were they anointed ? Always 
by applying the oil-^they poured it on the person, you know. 
Well, en is used constantly to express that fact. ''Anoint with 
oil." We are anointed, baptized with the Spirit — it is poured 
on us. We are baptized ivith water — it is poured on us. 

Locally, it is thus used: " Get thee hence and hide thyself 
en bv the brook Cherith." Often is it so used — we need not 
multiply cases. 

The brother lays much stress upon eis, into the water, and 
ek, out of the water. Acts viii. 38, where Philip baptized the 
eunuch. It proves nothing, leaves it an open question 
entirely. Now, eis occurs often with Jordan itself in the 
Bible where it does not imply and cannot imply penetration 
of the water at all, to even any extent. So ek applies to 
water, and the Jordan, out of, where no emergence is possible 
at all. This being the case, all that is said as to John bap- 
tizing in [eis] Jordan, or the eunuch is nothing. The only 
point is, why they went to Jordan, audi will give a Scriptural 
and perfectly satisfactory reason for that — my brother, by his 
theory, never can. That eis does not necessarily imply into, 
penetration, etc., we cite a few of many cases to the point : 

2 Kings, ii. 6 : " For the Lord hath sent me eis to Jordan." 

1 King:s ii. 8 : '' Meet me eis at Jordan." 

2 Kings, ii. 21 : " Went [they] forth eis unto the spring of 
the waters." 

1 Kings, xviii. 19 : " Gather to me all Israel eis at Carmel." 
Joshua, iii. 16 : " And those that came down eis towaeds 

the sea of the plain." 

Matt., V. 41: "Receiveth a prophet eis in the name of a 

prophet." 



Mode of Baptism. 67 

Is., xxxvi. 2 : " The king sent Rabshakeh from LacMsh eis 
TO Jerusalem." IN'ot into it, for the city was not yet captured, 
'^ And they remained outside, by the potter's field, and they 
came out and met them there," v. 3. 

Thus, we see, with verbs of motion even, eis applied to Jor- 
dan, did not once put them info its waters. Hence, no more 
does the bare occurrence of eis once, Mark i. 5, with baptize as 
to Jordan or water, imply it. It is simply as often in the 
Bible Greek used with the force of epi, at. Hence, Christ 
" Came to John epi at Jordan to be baptized. Matt. iii. 13. 

!N"o more does ek necessarily imply emergence or passing 
out of the element water, or the river literally. Exodus, ii. 
10. : " For I drew him (ek) out of the water." He was in a 
basket bedaubed with slime, floating on the water — not any 
water in or over him. 

Joshua tells us of the three millions of Hebrews, " They 
stood still in Jordan," Joshua, iii. 8; the ark passed "into 
Jordan," iii. 11; the priests "stood firm on dry ground in 
the midst of Jordan, iii. 17 ; they took stones " out of the 
midst of Jordan," x. 3; they passed over "into the midst of 
Jordan," x. 5, so verses 8 and 10, same facts. Then, from 
verses 16 to 20 they " came up out of Jordan;" "come, ye up 
out of Jordan." Five times does such language occur, yet 
not one was in water, not one immersed — there was no emer- 
gence. If millions could be said to be in Jordan, come out of 
Jordan, up out of Jordan, over and again, once it could be 
said " both Philip and the eunuch went down into the water — 
came up out of the water," or John baptized in Jordan, at 
Enon, near Salim, yet no dip occur. 

Ms, primarily, does not mean into. It meant, as Kuhner, 
Liddell and Scott, Passow, etc. show, motion or direction 
towards. Motion towards results in arrival at; hence, ai, to, 
unto. Motion towards is often for purposes of aid, help; 
hence, it comes to mean for. Often it implies opposition ; 
hence, against — rarely upon, on. It results in penetration; 
hence, into. Its meanings never can be accounted for philo- 
logically or scientifically from Dr. G.'s stand-point. It har- 
monizes perfectly with the position we hold with these great 



68 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

authorities. Hence we are left to the context, the surrounding 
facts to determine, as in all other words, its proper rendering 
in each place. 

My brother thinks " 'baptize with fire '' means to plange 
into hell-fire! I am amazed at such a position. Look at the 
facts and language : 

1. Multitudes came to he baptized. Luke iii. 15-20. 

2. John sajs : " I baptize you with water." 'No en here, at 
all — simply hiidati, with water. " He {Christ) shall baptize you 
with the Holy Spirit a??(i with fire.'' IsTotice the same parties 
who are baptized (1) with water, (2) then with the Spirit, are 
(3) the ones baptized with fire. 

3. iTowhere is baptize, in all the Bible, applied to being 
thrown into hell or hell-fire. IN'evee ! 

4. "ISTow, when all the people [who came to John to be 
baptized — V. 7] WERE baptized" — v. 21. Here, all who came 
— all " the multitude " — were baptized. I^ow, how absurd to 
say, John assured those he baptized with water — all right — 
I baptize you with water, Christ shall baptize you with the 
Holy Spirit, and then plunge you into hell! ! It is infinitely ab- 
surd. The baptism with fire was literally fulfilled on Pente- 
cost. " There appeared unto them cloven tongues like as 
of fire, and it sat upon each one of them." Acts ii. 3. The 
fire is a symbol of purification, the real object of the baptism 
of the Spirit on people. 

We have heard to-day what I never expected to hear, a 
Baptist admit that Jordan had not water enough in which to 
immerse. Dr. G-. thinks the reason why John left Jordan and 
went to Enon, on the high lands, was because the loater was 
getting too shallow to immerse people ! John went to Enon 
where he says the water was deep ! What a reason ! Where, 
on earth, did much {polla), many springs, come to mean deep f 
On the contrary, the hot season, most likely, was advancing ; 
the valley of the lower Jordan is intensely hot — the lowest 
spot above water on the globe, hence intensely hot, being 
about the latitude of Memphis, Tennessee. At first, John 
baptizes " away beyond Jordan," John x. 40-42. The multi- 
tudes learn and come, and it forces him to Jordan for the 



Mode of Baptism. 69 

purposes of water — running water — for all purposes of clean- 
liness, drinking, cooking, for animals on which they traveled, 
to drink, yet have pure^ i. e., running water. I'll make all 
this clear in due time. After the multitude was abating — 
fewer coming — the fine, cool springs in the high, mountainous 
regions of Salim, at Enon, furnished plenty of " running 
water," for all purposes whatever. 

We now come to Eomans vi. 3, 4. Dr. Graves insists that 
Christ wished to symbolize death, that is, his own death, by 
his baptism. Now, 

1. Baptism, from its institution by Moses (Exodus xxx. 18- 
20, Lev. viii. 6), till John's (Matt, iii., Luke iii. 9-20), never 
did represent death — no such thought in it. - Water symbol- 
izes life, not death. 

2. Christ's death was on a cross, by crucifixion, and couhl 
not be symbolized by a dip, a sudden dipping of the body 
under " living water." 

3. John tells us what Christ's baptism was for — that suit- 
able occasion might be given for his manifestation to Israel. 

4. The text proves it was not literal, water baptism. Let 
us see what Paul is discoursing about, Rom. vi. 2 : " How 
shall we that are" — notice the ^erise, present — "dead to sin 
live any longer herein. Know ye not, that so many of us as 
were [or are] baptized [into what now, water ? Is it that ? 
Kotice carefully,] into jesus Christ, were [are] baptized 
INTO his death." Here they are not baptized into water at 
all. Water is no where named. It is not a physical act — 
physical baptism. It is purely, entirely a spiritual work, as it 
is, 2 Cor. iv. 9, 10 — 'Same thing exactly — baptized into death — 
same here as 1 Cor. xii. 13 : " By one Spirit are we all bap- 
tized into one body," been all made to" drink into one Spirit," 
participate in it, receive it, be baptized with it. 

!N"ow, V. 4, the " buried " is the effect of the baptism, not the 
act, not the mode, but the effect of the previous baptism of the 
Spirit — its effect is to be " buried " — "therefore — a conclusion 
drawn here — we are buried through the [dia tou — the definite 
article] baptism [of the Spirit] into death," not water, but 
death to sin. Hence, there is no water baptism alluded to here. 



7© The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The same thiDg occurs 2 Cor. iv. 9, 10; "^'Always bearing 
about in the body the dying of the Lord. Therefore we who 
live, are always delivered [buried] eis into death for Jesus' 
sake." 

5. The word bury, used in the Greek, applies to any dis- 
posal of the dead; where they were embalmed, or burnt on 
piles of wood, laid upon scaffolds, to waste away, or interred, 
or put away in caves. There is no mode involved in the word. 
Yet, our opponents get all their capital out of it. 

6. This baptism was proof of death to sin — crucifixion with 
Christ. No church holds water baptism to be such. Hence, 
we are forced to admit it cannot be water baptism. 

The meaning immerse, then, cannot be Inferred from the 
nature or design of the rite, but just the reverse. Audits 
design or symbolism could not have anything to do with the 
primary meaning. Immerse is to sink — not to rise. That can- 
not be the design or symbolism of baptism. Nay, the fewest 
lexicons in the world, and the inferior ones, give bury as a 
meaning oibaptidzo; and they not from any law of language, 
but from a preconceived opinion as to Rom. vi. 4. But they 
all give it as a rare, metaphorical, never as a literal, meaning of 
baptidzo. But the primary is the meaning we are now search- 
ing for. 

I showed that dip is no meaning at all — immerse a rare, 
and late. Iron Age meaning. That it never meant immerse 
till 156 years B. C, and rarely so then. That Baptists ren- 
dered it immerse only ten times out of sixty-three consecu- 
tive occurrences ; dip, only eighteen times, out of four hundred 
and fifty-seven (457) counts ! ! 

He thinks we must render baptidzo by a word of action in 
the New Testament. Now, A. Campbell gives it twenty ren- 
derings, Conant, fourteen. When we render it "baptize 
vnth water," we have all the old Latin versions with us, 
and all ancient versions, like the Coptic, that were near 
enough of kin to the Greek to make a transfer of the word. 

Thus, IN EVERY CASE FROM THE DAYS OF ChRIST TILL THE Six- 
teenth and seventeenth centuries, all versions that could do 
it, transferred bn-pUdz'^ lu^i as we do. Why? No other word 



Mode of Baptism. 71 

CAN just represent it. To sprinkle, to pour, to dip, to im- 
merse, is not necessarily Christian baptism. I can dip a 
pen, immerse a dog, a rock, a cat, sprinkle a floor — are those 
baptisms in the IN'evv Testament sense ? Hence, no word of 
mere action can represent the baptidzo of the I^ew Testament. 
While I hold an object under the water it is immersed, is it not ? 
I put a man under the water — hold him there — he is 
immersed. Is he yet baptized? No; he is immersed, he is 
not baptized. I take him out; is he immersed, now? ]N"o. 
Is he baptized? You say he is. Well, he is baptized, then, 
but not immersed. Immersion, then, is not baptism — not its 
equivalent. You see it, feel it, why not act on it, then ? 

I have now shown that the primary mesLmng of baptidzo is to 
sprinkle. By my brother's logic and rules from Ernesti, 
Home, Stuart, etc., this was the mode and only mode when 
Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter, the Harbinger said: "I 
indeed baptize with water — he shall baptize you with the 
Holy Spirit and with fi.re." 

More than fifty words, all primarily meaning to sprinkle, or 
to moisten, wet, bedew, where it is by aflusion of liquids, 
come to mean all that baptidzo and bapto do, more or less. It 
is THE LAW of all languages. Words never begin with dip or 
immerse, and come to mean what all admit bapto and baptidzo 
do. Hence, infallibly certain it is that we are correct here. 
Years ago, we saw that the Baptist law of language involved 
infinite absurdities, impossibilities; had no foundation in fact, 
in history, in the laws of language, but just the reverse — did 
antagonize them all in every particular, as we have already 
shown. 

Acts xi. 15, 16 compared with x. 44, 45, we learn that the 
Spirit was " poured out on the Gentiles," " fell on them." 
This calls to Peter's mind thepromise of baptism. i^Tow, as yet, 
baptism had not been named. But when the Spirit was 
POURED out on them, it promptly calls to Peter's mind the 
promise of baptism. Acts i. 5, Matt. iii. 11, Mark i. 8, Luke 
iii. 16. "Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how 
that HE said, John indeed baptized with icater, but ye shall be 
baptized with the Holy Spirit.^' The mode is named, pour. It is 



72 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

called baptizing with the Spirit, in contrast with baptizing with 
water. Why is such language used ? ''I will pour water on 
him that is thirsty. . . I will pour my Spirit upon thy seed," 
etc.. Is. xliv. 3. Here the habit of pouring water in baptiz- 
ing is made the ground of using the same word as to the Spirit. 
As the water outwardly purifies physical things, symbolizes 
cleansing, and so most fitly represents the cleansing Spirit 
operating on us, as also oil^ always poured on the head, or 
sprinkled on the person also represented the anointing of the 
Spirit. It is never represented by dipping. 

In Hebrews ix. 10, we read of " divers baptisms," as the 
Greek has it, "immersions," in the Baptist Union Bible, A, 
Campbell, etc. E'ow, these baptisms were of the tabernacle 
service, v. 9. They were diverse in hind ; not baptisms on dif- 
ferent occasions, many baptisms, pollois baptismois, but diaphor- 
ois^ difierent in kind. It implies that there are differences in 
these baptisms ; they were different in sort, in hind, in the ele- 
ments. See the use of diaphoros, Deut. xxii. 9, Dan. vii. 19, 
Rom. xiio 6, difierent kinds of seed, a beast " diverse from all 
others;" gifts " diverse," one of one kind, another of another 
kind. In verses 13, 19, 21. Paul tells us in what this diversity 
consists : People, the book, vessels of the ministry, and the 
tabernacle; four diverse objects baptized with " blood of bulls 
and of goats," and the water of separation, in which were 
ashes of a red heifer, " sprinkling the unclean," and with 
" blood of calves." Here is a diversity of elements used, with 
which to baptize them. This could not be said of immersions 
in water by people. There would be no diversity in those 
processes to be marked by diaphoros, not difierent in kind, in 
elements. But he has no reply till to-morrow, we shall hear 
what he has to say then, and it is fair to wait always and hear 
both sides. 

But Dr. Graves thinks you cannot baptize a person if bap- 
tidzo means to sprinkle, to pour. We have seen enough to 
know how to value that. He argues that if baptize be to 
sprinkle, pour, dip, you have to use all those processes before 
you are baptized. Does he mean that for the intelligent 
people, or for the simple ones? Why all books are full of 



Mode of Baptism. 



73 



words used in different senses, else language would be end- 
less, which use, custom establishes and the context settles and 
makes easy of comprehension. Conant gives baptidzo four- 
teen renderings, A. Campbell, twenty. Now, by Dr. G.'s rule, 
you have to make a man drunk, whelm him with debts, sink 
him, drown him, wash him, overwhelm him with wine, im- 
batlie him, etc., before he is baptized ! What miserable re- 
sorts are these? yet they are the main staple of immersionists 
before the masses ! It is a shame to resort to such things. A 
generic word may have many species. We travel (generic). 
How ? We may walk a-foot, go on horse, wagon, buggy, 
stage, steamer, car, etc. Ride on horse, mule, car, etc. The 
word purify {kathairo, katharidzo) explains this. You may 
purify by burning, in fire, by a blow-pipe with fire, by sprink- 
ling blood, water, washing with water, etc. You may cleanse 
an object by washing, pouring water on it, by pouring or dip- 
ping in w^ater, then rubbing, by scraping, etc. So you 
sprinkle water on one, he is baptized. Pour it on him, he is 
baptized. You dip one in it, he is baptized. So in classic 
Greek, you give one wine, he is baptized. To another you put 
questions, he is baptized. You now pour abuse on him, he is 
baptized again. You burden one with taxes, he is baptized. 
Calamities fall upon him, he is baptized again. You asperse 
him, he is baptized again — classically, each time, but not Scrip- 
turally. — \^Time ouf] 



74 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FOURTH SPEECH. 

Mr. President: — I return to my unfinislied argument 
before I reply to the objections of my opponent. 

I was showing that Jesus clearly indicated the character of 

his own and John's baptism. Christ came to John for baptism. 

'' But John forbade him, saying, I have need to be baptized of thee, and 
comest thou to me ? And Jesus answering said unto him, suffer it to be 
so now ; for thus it becometh us to fulfil all righteousness. Then he suf- 
fered him." 

I said that in his baptism, Jesus fulfilled, symbolically, the 
three great acts by which he wrought out that perfect righteous- 
ness demanded by infinite justice. It was by his death, his 
burial and his resurrection that he wrought out our redemp- 
tion. This was the great process by which the Hedeemer 
rescued the guilty from the penalty of the law they had dis- 
honored. It was thus he satisfied the demands of infinite 
juftice and set the prisoners at large. If this was not the 
" all righteousness " which he performed, I would ask my 
opponent what it was ? But the Savior explains beyond a 
question the act he received at the hands of his Harbinger, in 
Luke xii : 50 : 

" But I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I straightened 
till it be accomphshed." 

He compares the overwhelming sufferings he was about to 

undergo, and for a season si7ik under, and afterwards to emerge 

from, to the baptismal act John administered to him. 

Let the Christian mind decide whether those sufierings 
were slight and trivial. Was he but slightly touched with 
them; were they but sparsely sprinkled or lightly poured upon 
Him, as Dr. Ditzler applies water to his subjects, or was He 
not for a season overwhelmed in them — plunged — in the 
language of his prophet — into the deep waters of inconceiv- 
able calamity, grief and anguish? 

We see that he here compares the sufferings that he was to 



Mode of Baptism. 75 

midergo to a baptism such as that he had to receive from the 
liands of John. And does not the figure exactly correspond 
with the facts it symbolizes ? Was not the Savior overwhelmed 
with grief and sorrow and suffering ? The sprinkling a few 
drops of water on the face would certainly be a very senseless 
proceeding, regarded as a method of shadowing forth the 
Redeemer's overwhelming sufferings. It would be to say that 
Christ was not overwhelmed with sorrow and suffering. It 
would intimate that they were very slight. But his own dec- 
laration, " I have a baptism to be baptized with," is tantamount 
to a declaration that the baptism he received at the hands of 
John was by immersion. His allusion was obviously to that 
(werivhelming suffering he was about to undergo. 

But beyond cavil or reasonable objection, the Apostle Paul 
tells us clearly and specifically : 

" Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death : that like as 
Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we 
should walk in newness of life. For if we have been planted together in 
the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrec- 
tion." — Rom. vi, 4-5. 

Paul here refers to the baptism that Christ himself received 
at the hands of his Harbinger. Those who have received a 
like baptism are admonished that they should henceforth walk 
in newness of life. Their new and spiritual life should pre- 
sent the same contrast to their old natural and carnal life that 
the life of Christ, when raised from the dead by the glory of 
the Father, does to his earthly and temporal life. Paul has 
the same thought and uses similar language in his epistle to 
the Colossians : 

"Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him 
through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the 
dead."— Col. ii, 12. 

The Colossians and their brethren at Rome are thus seen to 
Lave participated with Christ in his baptism. A common 
figure is thus seen to have symbolized the death and humili- 
ation of Christ and the spiritual attitude in which his disciples 
were placed in virtue of this great transaction. As Christ 
died, so they had died to sin; as Christ is risen from the dead, 
so thev too henceforth walk in newness of life. And all these 



76 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

several facts, whether relating to Christ or his disciples, are 
strikingly set forth by baptism. But this, of course, is said 
on the assumption that the baptism of a believer is an immers- 
ion — a burial. And this Paul distinctlv declares it to be — " we 
were buried with him by baptism." That these passages refer to 
Christian baptism, all commentators teach. Thus without 
the assistance of the lexicons, or withoat troubling ourselves 
even about the usus loquendi, we have found the meaning of 
Christian baptism. We are clearly instructed that Christ was 
buried in his baptism. And then John the Baptist and the 
apostles buried their disciples in baptism. And thus we have 
the inspired definition of baptism without going to heathen 
authors or to any human authority whatever. 

Baptism — To bury, to plant, i. e., cover over out of sight. 
These inspired meanings a thousand times outweigh all the 
authorities he can muster in forty languages. 

!N"ow notice, the Holy Spirit says that Christian baptism is 
a planting in the likeness of death. But, sir, there is only one 
likeness of death in the universe. My friend here can get 
a thousand dollars if he will design two likenesses of death. A 
gentleman of means, some years ago, ofiered a reward of ten 
thousand dollars in gold to any artist who would paint two 
likenesses of death. Could you paint them ? It is not the 
couched form, pale of cheek, the glazed eye, and the death- 
rattle; it is not the darkened chamber, the soft tread and 
stifled whispers, however closely associated with the idea 
these may be. "Why many a one has revived with all these 
sombre tokens around him to attest his dying. x^Tor is it the 
dark-plumed hearse drawn by raven steeds, bearing the sup- 
posed corpse to the grave — for even from the cofiin and the 
shroud and hearse, has the supposed corpse come forth. 
There is a case pending in one of the courts of l^ew Orleans, 
where an undertaker has sued a man for his funeral expenses, 
and the man declares he was never dead nor buried. While 
life was suspended, he was coffined and hearsed, and while on 
the way to the cemetery, he revived and beat upon his coffin's 
lid, arrested the attention of the driver, and was taken to his 
home; but the sexton demands the pay for his services. But 



Mode of Baptism. - 7^ 

when we have seen the lifeless form lowered down into the 

grave to rest silently in the tomb — this is death. This alone is 

that which adequately conveys an idea of death. Sprinkling 
a handful of sand or dust on the face, is not burying a man. 

Standing up a tree and sprinkling a spoonful of sand upon 

it, is not planting it. 

That these passages refer to water baptism, the candid 
Christian scholarship of all denominations frankly admits and 
teaches. It is a matter of equal surprise and regret that there 
are some controversialists who will presume, in the face of 
God's Word and the united testimony of eighteen centuries, to 
deny that these passages refer to water baptism. If we have 
been buried ivith Christ in baptism, then was Christ hiiried by 
John. There is no possibility of escaping this conclusion, and 
the Christian mind don't want to escape so palpable and so satis- 
factory an explanation. "If I sufler with you, you must 
suffer." " If I die with you, you must die," etc. 

Another argument added, would seem a work of superero- 
gation, but there is another, viz: 

' The primary meaimig of Baptidzo, as used by all Greek authors^ 
and admitted by all standard Greek Lexicons^ is to immerse, and it 
has no mearnng different from or opposed to this. 

Thus I have proved that John did immerse, and immerse 
ONLY, from the terms " en," " els," and " baptidzo," as used by 
the Holy Spirit in recording the language of John, and the 
baptism of Christ. 

Replication. 

I do not intend to be turned aside from the way I have laid 
out for myself. It is my duty to lead on this subject — Elder 
Ditzler's to follow, not to anticipate me by three or four days. 
With reference to Rom. vi, 4, my opponent maintains that 
the baptism there referred to, is spiritual baptism. And then, 
as he said before, has reference to the action of the Spirit. 
But I should think that the august founder of the church of 
my opponent, must be as good authority, on this question, at 
least with the members of the church he founded, as is my 
friend himself. Mr. Wesley, if I remember, says that 
" buried with him by baptism," alludes to the ancient mode of 



yS The Great Carrollton Debate. 

baptizing by immersion. Now will you say that my friend's 
opinion is to be received in preference to that of John Wesley 
himself, the father and founder of my opponent's church? 

Now, my friend admits that en means in, and if so, then it 
must be translated in, unless the context absolutely requires 
that we take some other meaning — which he don't claim. While 
he admits that en, primarily means iji, will he presume to deny 
that eis means into, where it is followed by the accusative 
which it naturally governs? Will he do it? Sprinkling, too, 
and not immersion, he claims is the primary meaning of bap- 
tidzo. How does he prove it? Not by his lexicons, but by a 
process of ratiocination peculiarly his own. I suppose every 
opinion, however in conflict with reason and common sense 
it may be, is sure to find some wild critic to champion it, and 
it seems that every civilized land must be inflicted with a crazy 
critic, and I am afraid that my friend Ditzler is getting a little 
dazed to emulate the eccentricity of the Scotch doctor. Ger- 
many once had such a man, and his name was Furst. He was 
known as the ''wild" or "crazy" critic, and the strange 
principles of philology you have heard from my opponent 
were conceived in Furst's brain — that the primary meaning of 
a term is the first meaning ever given to it — or, as Elder 
Ditzler calls it, the historical primary ! But what have we to 
.do with the probable first meaning of the term haptldzo. We 
want the meaning that was current and literal, when Christ used 
it. It seems that ever}- country has had, or has its "crazy" 
critic. Scotland, a few years ago, had one in the person of Mr. 
Ewing (Presbyterian). He felt it incumbent upon him to 
serve his church by ridding baptidzo of the idea of immersion. 
He affirmed that there was a relation between " bapto" and the 
English word "j^qp." By the aid of his philological chem- 
istry the b of bapto was converted into p, and a into o, while 
at the same time the to became sublimated; thus leaving in 
his critical retort, after the labored process was over, the word 
pop — and so poptizo to pop — is the sense of the term ! To 
such fanciful and puerile results does the mimetic theory of 
language conduct. America has its "crazy" hobby-rider in 
the person of Dr. Dale, who can demonstrate that the real 



Mode of Baptism. • 79 

meaning of 6ap^2(i2o invariably indicates m^ws position (to place 
within), and yet by his philological chemistry, it means only 
to sprinkle a few drops of water upon the subject! My oppo- 
nent, I hear, has recently smashed the pretty hobby-horse of 
his Bro. Dale, ambitious to have the whole field to himself 
and his newly constructed philological pony. I affectionately 
warn him of their untimely end. Pie should cultivate in him- 
self a higher ambition than to 

"Shine to delude, and to dazzle, then expire." 
I am really afraid that my friend has the ambition of 
becoming the crazy man of the Methodist Episcopal body of 
America. Now touching his qaeer etymological fancies, I 
am told that his people are wonderfully taken with them. He 
claims that the primary meaning of a term is the first significa- 
tion historically attaching to it ! Who ever thought of such a 
thing before? Why grant, in the case of baptidzo, that three 
thousand years ago it did mean sprinkle, is there any such 
significancy in that fact as can claim to modify or change the 
meaning of a document written two thousand years ago, in 
which the same word occurs after having undergone a change 
of signification quite diverse from its original import? Cer- 
tainly no jurist would admit such a change in the case of a 
legal document. [Now, what was the meaning of our English 
word prevent, say three centuries back? Why it had precisely 
that meaning which its etymology would seem literally to 
convey — to go before — from the Latin pre, before, and venio, 
to come. I will give brief examples from the Old and ^N^ew 
Testaments, of their use of the term in this sense, as this will 
serve to make more palpable the point I am insisting on : 

^^ I prevented the dawning of the morning and cried [unto thee] : Mine 
eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word." — 
Psalrri cxix, 147-8. 

'' They that received tribute money came to Peter and said : Doth not 
your master pay tribute ? He said, yes. And when he was come into 
the house, Jesus prevented him, saying: What thinkest thou, Simon? of 
whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute?" etc. — Matthew 
xvii, 24-25. 

"We who are alive and remain, shall not prevent them who are 
asleep." — 1 Thes. iv, 15. 

The Psalmist simply means that he awoke and prayed to 



8o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

God before the dawn, and not that he kept the dawn from 
coming; and the same with regard to the "night watches;" he 
anticipated them, and would not wait for them before reading 
and meditating on God's word. In hke manner, Christ con- 
siderately anticipated Simon, so as to relieve him of that 
embarrassment which he knew his reluctance to introduce the 
subject of the tribute would produce, seeing that he knew his 
Master had no money on hand with which to pay it. And 
Paul taught that the living would not go before the dead, in 
the first resurrection. N'ow just think of a jurist who should 
assume to deal with one of our statutes in this fashion and 
deny that anything was forbidden or interdicted by this word 
prevent^ and then proceed to make good his position by showing 
that according to its '' primary" meaning, the word had no 
such force ! AVoald not the court rule him a miserable trifler 
and commit him for contempt? If it would maintain its own 
dignit}' and the integrity of the law, it certainly ought. Once 
admit such a principle of interpreting language as this, and 
science and jurisprudence must forthwith become subverted, 
and confusion worse confounded, play havoc everywhere. 

Well, I say then, I have to do with baptidzo as it was used by 
Christ and the inspired writers of the New Testament; and I 
unhesitatingly affirm, that when they used it, its primar}- — 
that is, its common and prevailing meaning — was to immerse 
or dip. But he has seen fit to anticipate me by two or three 
days, and I am afraid vou will find him as far in the rear 
when I reach his present positions. 

We have to do with baptidzo as it was used by Christ and his 
apostles. We claim that the only point to be determined in 
regard to it is, its commonly accepted meardng in their time. ISTow 
he admits that in the time of Polybius, two hundred and fifty 
years before the Christian era, and in the time of Josephus, 
eighty years after it, its meaning was immerse. That is all we 
want. He concedes that Polybius and Josephus both use it in 
ihe sense of immerse. I say then, granting his unsubstantial 
fancy about its meaning, it makes nothing in favor of his 
theory of aspersion, and in no degree militates against mine. 
Indeed, so far as it affects the question in debate, it concedes 



Mode of Baptism. 8i 

everything. For if it had the meaning of immerse when the 
Kew Testament was written, it must have been employed in 
that sense by the inspired penmen themselves, and, of course, 
still retains that sense in our Bibles. 

I may be expected to notice his views in regard to Bethabara, 

away beyond Jordan. I should be pleased to know what 

interpretation he puts upon the narrative of the Evangelist, 

when he tells as that 

''These things were done in Bethabara, beyond Jordan, where John 
was baptizing." 

If it was a thousand miles, " more or less," as the lawyers 
say, beyond Jordan, how does this comport with the fact that 
John was baptizing at the Jordan? I ask him to deny that 
Bethabara was a common, well-known ford of the Jordan. Why 
he has a brother in Texas, one of the lights of Methodism in 
that State, who has discovered that the river Jordan, where 
John baptized, was no river at all, but a town in the south of 
Judea, bordering on the wilderness ! Now positions so ground- 
less and untenable as these, would certainly not be resorted 
to, except to give plausibility to an unscriptural rite. That it 
should stand in need of them, is the best proof that it has no 
more substantial ground to rest upon. — [^Time out.^ 

6 



82 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S FOURTH REPLY. 

GrENTLEMEN MODERATORS : — I iiiust coofess that the Doctor 
takes lis by surprise. I never expected to live to see the day 
when a Baptist would dry up Jordan. It is news indeed, to 
learn that Jordan ran so low, in the lower Jordan, as to be too 
shallow for an immersion of the linman body. 

But he falls back on Bethubara as the place that John (x, 
40-42) says was "away beyond Jordan,"" into which Christ 
went, where he abode, and at which place people met and 
" believed on him there.'' Bethabarathe house of the ford. Un- 
fortunately for the position, his own BaptistBible, Alex. Camp- 
bell, Anderson, Wilson — allimmersionists; all ancient Bibles — 
Greek, Syriac, Latin and Ethiopic, have it Bethany. Origen 
could not find Bethany near enough Jordan to suit him, and 
erased it from the text, and substituted Bethabara, because he 
could find it on Jordan. We do not recos^nize Ori^en's rio'ht 
to change our Bibles. Xo ancient copy reads Bethabara — all 
read Bethany. At first, then, before multitudes came, John 
baptized "away beyond the Jordan." Later, when crowds 
came, much water was needed for all purposes to which it is 
appropriated by people, and the Bible rcvqnired '"'running 
water,"' and hence John went to Jordan. The s^reat crowds 
abating, the fine springs or fountains of Enon, in high, healthy 
regions furnished enough water now for all purposes whatever 
We will recur to this in due time and sustain our reasons for 
John's places of baptism by Scripture. Dr. Graves, see- 
ing the desperate situation of his cause, resorts to the very 
doubtful expediency of fiercely assailing and trying to belittle 
the highest authority in the world. Furst is crazy — Ewing is 
wild. Ewing does not define baptidzo by the silly definition of 
pop, in his lexicon at all, but in a separate work he proposes 
that, on the same score, that immersionists do essentially, as 
to its root. It is absurd, of course, and has no part in our 
•debate. As for the o;reat Jewish iramersionist, Rabbi Furst, 



Mode of Baptism. 83 

he lias produced the best Hebrew lexicon, the best Hebrew 
concordance and lexicon, that ever have been given to the 
world. As a Rabbi, he was an immersionist — for Jews 
immerse all Gentiles now, just as Rabbi Wise is an immers- 
ionist. As to the report that he is " a crazy critic," that is all 
in Dr. Graves' imagination. I keep about as well posted as 
most men on German critics, and never have I heard or read 
of such a thing. We demand the papers for it. Immersion- 
ists may regard him as wild and crazy, just as such people did 
Franklin, Morse, Fulton, Copernicus, ISTewton, Jenner. The 
first cases of vaccination started the Dr. Graves class of people 
into a dreadful frenzy. To use vaccine matter would make 
men animals. Nay, it was reported some already chewed the 
cud, and others felt horns sprouting on their heads. Had 
Dr. G. been there, they would have shot out finely on his, no 
doubt. ]N"o, sir, when such critics as Kitto, Davidson, Smith, 
etc., hold Furst as first among lexicographers in Hebrew, and 
he has (died recently) the professorship of Oriental languages 
in the most renowned university for such studies on the globe 
— Leipsio, such attacks fall harmlessly to the ground. 

Dr. Graves now thinks that I want to get him away from 
the Bible argument! Was not his whole morning's speech 
about philology, canons of authority, interpretation and mat- 
ters wholly outside the Bible? Did he not quote laws from 
Ernesti, M. Stuart and Blackstone, from Home and others? 
Then did he not bring forward three human authorities, a 
Baptist, a Presbyterian — Geo. Campbell, and a Lutheran — 
Bretschneider, I believe? Did he quote the Bible? Did he 
offer a Bible argument? Did not all he adduced point to a 
philological argument, to be conducted by scientific methods, 
or philological principles? He did. N^ow when I pursue 
exactly the course laid out by him, and it is perfectly evident 
my facts cannot be met, he flies precipitately to Jordan, en- 
trenches himself behind Enon, and already hides in ^* buried 
with him through baptism unto death ! " He told us of the 
strong words of Elder Wilkes in the Louisville Debate 411, 
that not for a day and a half would the common people under- 
stand him, yet, at the end of Dr. G's hour, how many could 
see his aim? 



84 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The Doctor thinks that the " righteousness" Christ fulfilled 
at his baptism, was symbolic of his suflerings which he was 
sure to endure on the cross; but Dr. G. claims that the bap- 
tism administered by John, was Christian baptism. If so, its 
import is always the same — has the same object, aim, purpose 
to whomsoever administered. If in the case of Christ, it was 
symbolic of his death and burial, and foreshadowed his sufier- 
ings, then the baptism of his disciples must have had the 
same signification. But no, we are told their baptism symbol 
ized their death unto sin. In this instance, then, Christ's bap- 
tism could have had nothing in common with that of his 
disciples. He never knew sin. John's baptism was unto 
repentance. Did it betoken that to Christ? or symbolize 
regeneration? 

Christian baptism symbolizes regeneration — the purification 
of our polluted natures. If Christ's baptism was to represent 
to us its import that we fulfill all righteousness, it goes too 
far you see, in all these points. In this and all other points, 
Christ's baptism had nothing in common with ours in import, 
in design. 

But Dr. G. restricts the meaning of what the Savior did in 
his baptism to a foreshadowing of his own death, burial and 
sufiferings. But Christ's main suficrings were on the cross. 
How could a dip under clear, pure water, symbolize, from 
your stand-point, the crucifixion ? Where is the point of 
analogy? Up till then, for fifteen hundred years, never had 
water baptism symbolized death, burial, crucifixion or any 
such thing. No such fact can be adduced. Hence it would 
have utterly failed in import. No apostle or disciple, or Jew 
so understood it. Christ said no sign should be given of his 
resurrection save that of Jonah. 

But he asks: "Could a little water sprinkled or poured on 
the head, represent the sufiFerings and burial of Christ — his 
death ? " We reply : In Matthew xxvi, 9-12, the woman 
poured oil on his head, and he said: "In that she hath poured 

this ointment on my body, she did it [pros) in respect^in reference 
to my burial." A little oil poured on his head symbolized 
literally — " the burying of me " — my being buried. As to Ms 



Mode of Baptism. 85 

death, a svp of wine memorializes all that. A bit of bread 
symbolizes the breaking of his body. Quantity is not invol- 
ved in the symbolic element or a corresponding modal act 
at all. 

Dr. G. says the learning of the world is with him, that 
Rom. vi, 4, '' buried by baptism into death " refers to water 
baptism. We answer, Beza, M. Stuart, Hodge, to go no fur- 
ther, all hold, in their commentaries, etc., that it does not so 
refer. The context shows it does not so refer. The w^orld 
being divided, we are left to examine it critically and decide 
by the facts involved, which show clearly that it does not so 
refer. Wesley, Clarke and the great body of those who hold 
it as so referring, held that it was Jewish Proselyte baptism 
to which Paul referred. As the Jewish writers in the fourth 
and sixth centuries spoke on it, they were misled by their 
later style of treating it. All Baptists reject the opinion, 
and hold that it was not practiced in or before apostolic 
times, and hence not referred to by Paul. In rejecting 
the opinion on which Wesley, Clarke, etc., based their com- 
ment, they destroy this testimony, and thus it all falls, and 
leaves in full force the testimony of the other class of com- 
mentators with whom we hold. As to "planted" with him — 
trees, shrubs, etc., are planted, not buried^ it involves not 
envelopment. Seed are sown — sprinkled — ^^'cast your seed 
corn — bread corn — upon the waters." 

We have shown by an appeal to all standard Greek lexicons; 
by an appeal to the ablest immersionist authors; by an appeal 
to the classic Greek writers themselves, that baptidzo did not 
mean to immerse — that it never was applied to the act of im- 
mersion — till in Polybius, and subsequent Greeks of the iron 
age of Greek. They cannot find — they never will find — an 
-example previous to that age in which it meant immerse. It 
also means to make drunk, overflow, overwhelm, drench, as 
well as Immerse; and there would be as much propriety in 
restricting its E"ew Testament use to "make drunk ^' as its 
meaning, as to fall upon any other single classic meaning, if 
jou are to go by the Doctor's rules. 

As to £is^ it primarily implies direction towards. ( See Lid- 



S6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

dell & Scott, Passow, Kuliuer, etc.) I have shown that ds as 
often means at, to, in, unto, for, as into. Its precise meaning, 
therefore, in any given case, must be determined by the con- 
text where its relation to each word is indicated bv the surround- 
ings of the word. To insist, therefore, that in every case its 
meaning is into, is just as much unscientific as to claim that 
haiotidzo always and everywhere means to immerse. 

"But what does all this amount to,^' Dr. G. asks? It is 
well enough to decry the character of an argument that one 
feels himself unable to answer. But heretofore their greatest 
and most distinguished authors, such as Cox, Gale, Conant, 
Ripley. A. Campbell, Wilkes, Judd, J. R. Graves, have always 
pursued the philological argument as their chief and almost 
their only dependence. Dr. Graves quotes from Judd, from 
Michaelis, from Castel, BuxtorJOF, Beza; and all of them, when 
they are before their own people, rely on the philological argu- 
ment But now, when we come to confront them, they tell us 
that all our talk about philology, is a matter of empty parade 
and a vain display ! Let them then pour the phials of their 
wrath on their own Carsorss, their Conants, Judds and Graves, 
Gale, etc., etc., for we know that all these distinguished 
authorities had relied on the philological arguments in defense 
of their distinctive views. But I am not dependent upon lan- 
guages on this question. It is a plain matter of fact. But 
these arguments have been made by our opponents, and great 
stress laid upon them. These things are well known, and we 
now have these great authorities before us, and it certainly, 
therefore, is incumbent on us to quote them, and to meet the 
bold assertions, so often made. When quotations are made 
from Blackstone, and from Stnart, Ernesti, etc., as to the 
principles on which language is to be interpreted, we suppose 
it means something. But it is not that they are opposed to 
philology; for so long as they see a chance of pressing it into 
their own service, they are great on philology, and only dis- 
credit it as an essential element in this controversy, when they 
see that it cannot be made subservient to their own sectarian 
purposes. 

It seems our immersion friends are now wild over Rabbi 



Mode of Baptism. 87 

Furst, the great Jewish lexicographer. But let us see if he is 
essentially alone, or well supported. Tabhal is the Hebrew for 
baptize. It is translated both hajpto and baptidzo in the Septua- 
gint used by the Apostles. The Targums, Versions by Jews 
into Chaldee, translate tabhal by rachats, wash, also. Let us 
ijow examine the lexicons on tabhal. We pass by the little 
manuals that are purely abridgments and inferior, save one, 
Stokius. As he has been held up so confidently by immersion- 
ists, we cite him as a manual. 

1. Schindler, 1612 Pentaglotton folio. Tabhal, to moisten, 
dip, immerse — tlius, to wash, as the object is not to be cleansed, 
but MERELY TOUCHES {attingat humorem vel tota, vel ex parte, bap- 
tizavit) the liquid, [for it applies to any liquid] in whole or in 

part, to baptize.^' 

2. Stokius — moisten, dip, immerse, &c. So it touches the 
liquid in whole {aut saltern ex parte) or merel^^ in part." 

3. Leigh's Gritica Sacra — same as rest — then — "but it merely 
touches the liquid {tantum attingat) either in whole or in part 
[partly], to baptize." 

4. Buxtorff's Chaldee, Bobbins' &c folio, thirty years' work 
in it. Tabhal "moisten, dip, &c," same as rest in substance — 
and the object "is not washed all over, but besprinkled with 
the water, [ab aqua). He shows, too, that in later days immer- 
sion of the body occurred. 

5. Qdi^^tQW^Heptaglotton^lQQ^. This great work cost immense 
labor. Really there are over three hundred years of the labor 
of the greatest scholars and philologists of that century of 
linguists embraced in this great work. Nineteen of the great- 
est philologists and linguists of that century were engaged in 
it. It is therefore equivalent to 19 Lexical authorities. Hear 
this volume of imposing authority then, on tabhal, the equiva- 
lent of baptidzo. To moisten, dip, immerse, (English dip or 
dabble) baptize. It differs from rachats, because washing is 
for cleansing 2in object. But the dipping merely touches the 
object to the liquid in part or wholly — (Intinctio, autem rem 
humidam contingat tantum, vel ex parte, vel totam, liab. Dav., Gen. 
xxxvii, 31 verse). Chaldee, tebal, same as Hebrew and Rab- 
binic. To wash one's selfycleanse anything in water. But the 



88 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

washing is of vessels or men. Later it might be by immer- 
sion of the whole body, but not always, [at non semper.) 

Here now, we have the equivalent of 23 lexicographers, and 
Kimchi, the classic Jewish lexicographer of the 10th century, 
making 24 all defining it first, to moisten, (^*'^^o), then dip, and 
tell us, all of them, that it is such a dip as merely touches, 
{tango, to touch), the object baptized, to or with the liquid or 
water, in part, or in whole. This dip is not what you want. 
It baptizes if it merely touches the object to or (ab aqua) by the 
liquid or water. Then with this fact, it is immerse last, and 
nowhere means immerse in the Bible, but only in laie Chaldee, 
and not alwavs so then. Xow 

6. Furst, the great Jewish Rabbi, Professor of Hebrew in 
Leipsic, where, above all Universities in the world, Hebrew is 
most thoroughly taught, i\\Q folio work defines it : 

^'To moisten, to wet, to sprinkle, to immerse — rigare, tingere, 
perf under e, immergere.^' In his late large German, Hebrew and 
Chaldee lexicon, translated by the learned S. Davidson, one of 
the most critical scholars of England in this century, it is 
exactly the same — to moisten, wet — henetzen answering to tingo 
in his Latin. Sprinkle {begiesseJi answering to his Latin perfun- 
dere), rigere, tingere, therefore to dip, to immerse. That is from 
tingere, moisten or wet, dip, immerse, are derived meanings, just 
as we proved by such a world of facts. He then adds : ''The 
fundamental signification of the stem (bal) is to moisten, be- 
sprinkle." 

I would be glad now for the Doctorto bring up their favorite 
Gesenius. I will show him how to support our position also, 
as he gives the root as equivalent to the Greek deno whence 
comes our dew, bedew, sprinkle, and though it is all false phi- 
lology in Gesenius, yet if he adopts him, he is crushed by him 
from the facts we will adduce from Gesenius. Hence all He- 
brew learning, lexicography and facts are with us here, and 
perfectly demolish the Doctor. I want Maimonides of the 
12th century, the old Jewish Arab introduced, so often quoted 
by their side. We are prepared with it in the original. With 
these proofs, we turn to the Bible, our great store-house both 
of truth and of facts. 



Mode of Baptism. 89 

When I was a youth in school, Dr. Graves was a skilled 
debater. He was in the thickest of the fight when I was a 
student in college. He is presumed, therefore, to be able to 
do all that man can do here for his cause. We appeal to you 
all — have we shunned any point — shrank from any issue he 
has raised? Not one. We have met every point, and at the 
same time amassed such a weight of evidence for affusion as 
the only Scriptural mode, that it perfectly overshadows all he has 
adduced, and he has not even made a serious attempt to assail 
us anywhere. I came prepared to begin with the Bible — plain 
English argument, but he began with philology — I had to 
follow and did so. 

Hebrews ix, 10, we are told the tabernacle service consisted 
in "meats and drinks, and (diaphorois baptismois), diverse bap- 
tisms.'' Then the Jewish service had baptisms different in kind 
— so the word means, not _poZZoz5 in man?/. The word denotes 
things different in. kind — elements, species different, and is 
always so used in the Bible. Paul tells us in what these diver- 
sities consisted in verses 13, 19, 21. With water, with blood 
of three different kinds of animals, four different sorts of 
elements besprinkled on four different sorts of objects, the 
people, book, tabernacle and vessels of the Ministers, Hence 
on the meaning of eis, let us quote : 

2 Kings, ii, 6 — "For the Lord hath sent me els, to Jordan." 

1 Kings, ii, 8 — "Meet me (eis) at Jordan." 

2 Kings, ii, 21 — "Went (they) forth eis, unto the spring of the waters." 
1 Kings, xviii, 19 — "Gather to me all Israel, eis, at Carmel." 

Josh, iii, 16 — "And those that came drew eis, toward the sea of the 
plain." 

Luke V, 4 — "Launch the ship eis, into the deep." Certainly'' it went not 
under, but on the water ; in it, not submerged. 

Luke, XV, 22 — "Put a ring eis, on his hand." 

We have selected cases where water was involved ; verbs of 
motion used, yea, a number where (eis ton Jordane) eis stood 
connected with "the Jordan" exactly as in Mark i, 5 — "baptize 
eis in or at the Jordan," the only time eis connects baptize with 
anything, such as river, water, &c, in the ISTew Testament. 
It IS now demonstrated that eis proves nothing as to mode in 
Mark i, 5 ; Acts viii, 38. Hence Liddell & Scott's lexicon, Dr. 
G's favorite, says of eis, its "radical signification is direction 



90 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

towards^ motion to, on or into." So Passow, Kuliner and Butt- 
man. 

So much do eis and evi, at, upon, to, answer to each other in 
meaning, that in different manuscripts and texts they inter- 
change often. 

is'or is ek, out of, any help, for Exodus ii, 10, we read : "I 
drew him (ek) out of the water." Yet he was in a basket so 
prepared as to float on the water. "And we departed (exaesa- 
men) from the sea." Here are both ek and apo, yet they were 
not in the sea. In Joshua iv, 16-10, we have ^^out of Jordan" 
fl.ve times repeated. ''Come up out Jordan," ek, where some 
three millions of people "came up out of Jordan," yet not one 
immersed, but were on "(irj/ land.'' Texts could be multiplied, 
but this is enough. Nothing is more common than to bid a 
child to come out of that water. What are you doing in that 
water ? where it is only playing in a pan or puddle of wat^r 
or a branch. 

There is no proof at all that Philip immersed the eunuch. 
It simpl}^ leaves the mode an open question to be settled by 
other facts. There is no proof that John immersed a soul in 
all his life, but every proof of the fact that he baptized, as 
alwaj'S Jews had, by affusion. 

How did John baptize? "With water." But the Doctor 
says en is always i7i — equivalent to our in. Locally it is often 
so used. But indicating instrumentality, which is its use here, 
it is never so used. 

1. In about half the cases of "baptize with water," it is 
simpl}^ hudati with water — no en, but dative of instrument. 

2. The en occurs hundreds of times in the Greek of the old 
and new Testaments, meaning with 'where instrumentality was 
indicated, and affusion always the mode. Ezekiel xvi, 4, 9, is an 
example. In the one case an infant the day it was born is 
'hvashed en with water. Yerse 9, "then washed I thee en with 
water. I annointed the en with oil. Annointing en with oil 
occurs forty-one times consecutively in the Penteteuch and 
mixing with {en) oil, where we all know it was alwa}- s by pour- 
ing. Yet en indicates its use — points out its instrumentality. 
Is a new born babe dipped under water to be washed ? So in 



Mode of Baptism. 91 

cleansing a "house, five times en occurs in one verse, where it is 
cleansed by sprinkling, yet reads en with water, en w^ith blood 
and en with hyssop, &c. "Rule en with a rod of iron." We need 
not quote a world of texts. The Bible is full of such. Hence 
John baptized with water as an instrument. Christ ivith the 
spirit, with fire. The water was administered by afiusion, epi, 
at Jordan, eis at Jordan. Matt, iii, 13 ; Mark i, 5 ; en at or in 
Jordan, all within its banks Carson agrees is implied here — 
may be implied — as a location it was epi^ eis, en Jordan, at 
Bethany, at Enon John baptized, with water. Matthew, Mark, 
Luke, John, Peter, Christ, all are witnesses here that it was 
"with water," "with the spirit." It was poured on them, fell 
on them, was shed on them. And how absurd for John to say, 
"I baptize you with water. Christ w^ill baptize you with the 
Spirit and cast you into hell/^ the very ones that received a double 
baptism!! Acts xi, 15, 16. When Peter had seen that the 
Spirit was poured upon them, he said, "Then remembered I 
the word of the Lord, how that he said, 'John indeed baptized 
with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." 
And on the day of Pentecost they had the fiery element super- 
added, with which they were baptized in accordance with 
John's prophetic declaration. But my opponent would strangely 
construe this as an allusion to the immersion of the impenitent 
wicked in hell. You see on the day of Pentecost they were 
baptized with the Holy Ghost and with fire. The Holy Ghost 
descended, and rested on them, and cloven tongues as of fire 
sat upon each of them. There was no immersion. And if 
we were inclined to exult over a vanquished opponent, we 
might assuredly do so now, the Doctor having failed so signally 
in his attempt to give even plausibility to the position he has 
laid down. Every thing, moreover, which he has advanced, 
having the semblance of argument, we have so efiectually strip- 
ped of its disguise, that, even to his own friends, it can hardly 
wear the aspect, we should think, of respectable sophistry. 
And now, in closing these remarks, I cannot but express my 
ardent desire that each minister of Christ's gospel, as he goes 
forth to his great work, may henceforth receive more copiously 
that baptism of the Holy Ghost, to which our thoughts have 
just now been directed. — [^Time upJ] 



92 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FIFTH SPEECH. 

Mr. President: — My opponent a little misunderstood me. 
I did not deny that Ewing was a scholar. I did not deny that 
Dale was a scholar. I willingly concede that these men were 
scholars. My remarks were not intended to disparage their 
scholarship but to expose the flimsy, unsubstantial character of 
their wild philological fancies. 

And then, he is mistaken again on another point. In my 
speech yesterday, I only referred to lexicons in general terms. 
I did not spend one moment in discussing philologi/. l^or have I 
the least objection to these great tomes piled up here to aston- 
ish the common people. You know, Mr. President, that I 
said at the outstart, I was going first to develop the meaning 
of the word of God on this subject. And I venture to affirm, 
that there is not a child that has arrived at the years of 
accountability, but can see that the word of God does itself 
furnish a clear interpretation of the meaning of baptidzo, and 
that that meaning is to immerse; and this, observe, is the point 
we want to arrive at; all outside of that Book is merely inci- 
dental to this question, i^ow I have to say that he will find 
he cannot get me away from that argument. You Missouri 
farmers tell your man to go and plant corn and he sprinkles it 
on the top of the ground, has he obeyed you ? Has he planted 
if he has only dropped it ? You tell him to. go bury a dead 
carcass, and he only sprinkles a handful of dirt upon it, has 
he obeyed you ? Is sprinkling a thing covering it over ? 

One thing I failed to notice yesterday. He referred to Pin- 
dar as the first Greek who ever used " baptidzo,'' and as having 
then used it metaphorically. This is a glaring mistake. Pin- 
dar, in the example given, used it in a strictly literal sense. 
There is nothing but dip in it. Conant translates the passage 
thus : 

« 

" For as when the rest of the tackle is toiling deep in the sea, I, as a 
cork above the net, am undipped — abaptistos — in the brine." 



Mode of Baptism. 93 

As dll figures are founded on facts, so the figure employed 
by the poet here, is founded upon the physical fact of the 
undipped — not the unmoistened or the unsprinkled — cork of the 
fisher's net. There is nothing but dip, in this example, and 
it is an omen that bodes disaster to his cause, when the very 
first case he himself selects, overthrows his position ! 

I expected from Elder Ditzler a stunning assailment of my 
position in demonstrating the act of John's baptism, the act 
which Christ and his apostles and every member of the first 
church received, but strange to say, he noticed but a few of 
them, and these so feebly that I regard it as equivalent to an 
admission on his part, of their unanswerable force; and the 
act of John's baptism once determined, the act which Christ 
commanded is evidently established by it, for no sane man can 
be persuaded that Christ did not command his apostles to 
administer the act which he and they had received at the 
hands of John. Every Christian will be safe in following the 
example of Christ. 

I propose, in this speech, to defend my eight arguments by 
additional considerations and by the concurrent testimony of 
the most distinguished Pedobaptist scholars, and those of his 
own school. My first argument was — 

1. The Primary and Literal Signification of the Prepo- 
sition "en" is "in." 

If this is sustained or admitted, then must we render en by 
in, in every place in the New Testament where it occurs, 
unless it is repugnant to the sense of the passage. 

PROOF. 

1. Ko Greek scholar will deny that en does primarily and 
literally mean in, and corresponds exactly to our preposition 
in, and means in, as often as the English preposition m, means 
in. 

2. Every Greek lexicon extant gives, in, as the primary 
meaning of en. 

3. The usus loquendi of the 'New Testament unquestionably 
sustains this meaning. 

We find en used two thousand six hundred and sixty times 
in the New Testament, and it is translated in, two thousand 



94 1'he Great Carrollton Debate. 

and forty-five times, which proves it to be its general, v^hich 
is its priraary meaning. But it is translated by on, and by at 
or with, three hundred and thirteen times, and by within, 
among, hy, and because of, in the remaining places. 

^o\Y any one can convince himself by an examination, that 
a majority of these places might be properly translated in, 
and that in every case, this meaning governs the sense. 

ILLUSTRATIONS : 

"He spake by parables," "love the Lord with the heart, soul, 
mind;'' in is the sense. " On the feast day," " on the Sabbath 
day;" evidently in. "Say not within yourselves," '''at that 
time;" m is theforce here, "^mon^ themselves," and strange, 
doubly strange, en agape (1 Cor. xvi. It) '''"with love," when it 
should be in love; as, we should speak the truth in love. 

I seal what I have to say on en with this, that unless en 
means in, the Greek had no preposition the primary meaning 
of which was invariably in, which fact will satisfy every Chris- 
tian and fair-minded person. I quote upon Elder Ditzler, the 
language of Eev. Jas. Harvey to the father and founder of 
Elder Ditzler's own church. 

"The Rev. Jas. Harvey, addressing the Rev. J. Wesley, says: 'lam 
ready to grant that places may be found where the preposition en must be 
understood according to your sense ; [ that is, with : ] ; but then every one 
knows that this is not the native, obvious, literal meaning ; rather a 
meaning swayed, influenced, moulded by the preceding or following 
word.' ' He will not allow the Greek preposition en to signify in; though 
I can prove it to have been in peaceable possession of this signification 
for more than two thousand years.' — Letters to Mr. J. Wesley^ pp. 26-322.'''' 

What, therefore, have I a right to conclude, and what is the 
duty of all to believe ? Certainly, that whatever John did to 
the people or to Christ, denoted by " baptized," he did to them 
in water, and not with it; and in the words of the Spirit, he did 
baptize Christ " in the river of Jordan," and not with it, or on it, 
or by it, and if there is one who can think that John took his 
subjects mfe the river to srprinhle them, I have no argument with 
that man; the man don' t live that really believes he did. Let no 
Baptist henceforth for one moment, admit the reading, with, 
in the Greek. 

n. My Argument from "eis" is very similar. The 



Mode of Baptism. • 95 

Primary, Literal and General Signification of " bis," as 

USED BY ALL GrEEK WrITERS AND AS GIVEN BY ALL GrEEK 

Lexicons is into, and never with; and the Holy Spirit says 
m AND into, never with, at or near to. 

It is used seven hundred and ninety-five times by the four 
evangelists, and translated three hundred and seventy-two 
times by into; and by to for into, more than one hundred times; 
and two hundred and seventy-three times by unto in the sense 
of into. 

illustrations : 

When he came to the house, to the city, to the temple, to 
Jerusalem, to Bethany, to Nazareth, to Jericho as you say 
you go to St. Louis; it must be translated into, unless the 
context forbids. The Greeks had no other word whose pri- 
mary meaning was invariably into, as we have none in English 
save into. 

l^ow Mark, by the Holy Spirit, tells us that Jesus came 
from Hazareth, of Galilee, and was baptized of John — "ezs ton 
Jordanen"—into Jordan. No Greek scholar can translate it otherwise. 
Whatever John did to Jesus, denoted by the Greek verb 
baptidzo, the act put Christ into the water of the river Jordan. 
Is there a man, woman, or child, will the most unprincipled of 
modern professional controversialists assert, that he sprinkled 
Christ into the river, or poured him into the river, or as Ewing 
claimed, popped him into the river. 

I dwell at this length upon these two prepositions because I 
think they conclusively settle the whole question touching the 
action of baptism when properly translated. I would be per- 
fectly willing to leave it to the impartial verdict of any twelve 
veracious men, under oath, living in this town or in the State 
of Missouri. Their force in determining the action of bap- 
tism has never been developed, because the translators clearly 
saw that to translate them literally in every case, in the lan- 
guage of Dr. Beecher, respecting baptidzo, they would seem to 
take sides in the controversy then pending; accordingly, in 
order to take neither side, they did not attempt to give sense, 
and used the ambiguous with, though in two instances, Mark 
i, 9, they were compelled to translate it so nearly literally that 



g6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the passage settles the action forever. Christ was immersed 
into the river Jordan. These two Httle prepositions are two 
hooks of steel that cannot be broken, and whose hold is sure. 
I claim that they alone settle this question in my favor, that 
Christ was baptized by immersion, and if Christ, then his 
apostles and all whom John baptized. 

III. The Places John Selected for the Administration 
OF the Kite are Determinative of the Mode. 

They were at the river Jordan, and at Enon, and the Holy 
Spirit says he was baptizing at Enon because there was much 
water there, ^onus says diophonon hudor, deep water. He 
never would have resorted to much water unless for immers- 
ing. A pitcherful would have sprinkled a thousand, and a 
bucketful would have sufficed for all John ever baptized, if he 
performed the rite as moderns do, by laying a moistened 
finger on the forehead, which is neither sprinkling nor pouring. 

"Calvin. — ' From these words (John iii, 23) it may be mferred that 
baptism was adrainistered, by John and Christ, by plunging the whole 
body under water.' " 

"Bp. Bossuet. — 'The baptism of St. John the Baptist, which served 
for a preparative to that of Jesus Christ, was performed by plunging. 
The prodigious multitude of people that flocked to his baptism, made St. 
John the Baj)tist choose the places about Jordan, and among those places 
the country of ^non near to Salim, because there was much water there, 
and a great facility for dipping those who came to consecrate themselves, 
etc' " 

"Dr. Towerson. — ^For what need would there have been of the Bap- 
tist's resorting to great confluxes of water, were it not that the baptism 
was to be performed by an immersion ? A very little water, as we know 
it doth with us, sufficing for an effusion or sprinkling.' In Booth's Pedo- 
baptim, vol. i, p. '209." 

"Dr. Doddridge. — ^ At yEnon, because there was a great quantity of 
water there. It is exceedingly difficult to determine the true situation of 
this place. * * * But nothing surely can be more evident than that 
polla hudata^ many waters^ signifies a large quantity of water, it being 
sometimes used for the Euphrates ( Jer. li, 13) . Sept. To which, I sup- 
pose, there may also be an allusion (Rev. xvii, 1 ). Compare Eze. xliii, 
2; and Rev. i, 15; xiv, 2; xix, 6; where the voice of many waters does 
plainly signify the roaring of a high sea.' In the Paraphrase he writes : 
'And John was also at that time baptizing at ^non, which was a place 
near Salim, a town on the west side of Jordan ; and he particularly chose 
that place, because there was a great quantity of water there, which made 
it very convenient for his purpose ; and they came from all parts and 
were baptized by him.' " 



Mode of Baptism. 97 

"Olshausen. — 'John also was baptizing in the neighborhood, because 
the water there * * * * aflbrded convenience for immersion.' Com. 
on John iii, 22-36." 

"Dr. W. SMiTH.r— 'There was ^non, near to SaUm, to the north, 
where St. John was baptizing upon another occasion, "because there was 
much water there" (iii, 23). This was during the summer, evidently 
( cDmp. ii, 13-23) that is, long after the feast of the passover, and the river 
had become low^ so that it was necessary to resort to some place where the 
waiter was deeper than at the ordinary fords. ^ Bib. Die. Art; Jordan. 
( tSig. E. S. Ff.) Subsequently the writer speaks of ^non, 'where there 
was not generally so much of a ford, but, on the contrary, where the 
\\'ater was still sufficiently deep, notwithstanding the advanced season.' 
Under ^non, we read '^non, a place "near to Salim," at which John 
baptized. It was evidently west of the Jordan, and abounded in water.' " 

" Dr. Macbride. — 'The spot chosen by the Baptist on the banks of 
the river, and the observation that he baptized at ^Enon "because there 
was much water there," seem to prove that he administered it by immer- 
sion.' Lee. on the Diat." 

I claim this to be a conclusive argument in itself, sufficient 
to satisfy any reflecting mind. The leading lawyer of the 
McMinnville bar, during my opponent's debate with Elder 
Brents, stated, in my hearing, fhat he had heard the discus- 
sion of one question, the mode of baptism, and he declared 
that the fact that John did resort to the Jordan and to Enon 
J'or the purpose of baptizing, conclusively and forever, in his 
mind, determined the act to have been immersion. 

IV. It was the People, and Not the Water, he baptized. 
But he Could Neither Pour nor Sprinkle People, but he 
COULD Immerse them, therefore neither to Sprinkle nor to 
Pour, can be the Definition of baptidzo. 

This is conclusive against sprinkling and pouring at least. 
John certainly did not perform either of these acts. 

Y. John Mentions Three Baptisms : " En Hudati,'' " En 
Pneumati Hagio " and " En PurV We know the action of 
each must have been the same; for they are described by 
the same words. 

Now, we know the last baptism is to be an immersion in fire, 
for John himself explains it to be in everlasting fire that all 
the finally impenitent will be immersed or overwhelmed. 

" Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, the 

7 



qS The Great Carrollton Debate. 

wheat he will gather mto his gamer, but the chaff he will bum up in 
unquenchable fire." 

I submit a few other passages : 

The beast and false prophet "both were cast alive into a lake of fire 
burning with brimstone." 

Of Satan, it is said the angel "cast him into a bottomless pit." 
Again: "Death and hades were cast into the lake of fire, and whoso- 
ever was not found written in the book of life was cast iato the lake of 
fire." 

Again: "Cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness, there 
shaU be weeping and gnashing of teeth." 

Again: " Depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire, prepared for 
the devil and his angels." 

Therefore John's baptisms, "en hudatV and '^ en pneumati 
hagio,'' were by immersion also. That this is, beyond contro- 
versy, determinative, mark the teachings of the most learned. 

"Dr. Robinson's Greek Lexicon of the New Testament, p. 126, 'Meta- 
physically and in direct allusion to the sacred rite, baptize en pneumati 
hagio kaipuri, to baptize in the Holy Ghost and in fire — i. e., to over- 
whelm, richly furnish with all spiritual gifts ; or overwhelm with fire 
unquenchable. Matt, iii, 11 ; Luke iii, 16 ; Mark i, 8 ; John i, 83. Still 
in allusion to thorite; to baptize with calamities — i. e., to overwhelm 
with sufferings. ' " 

"Dr. George Campbell, of Scotland, says: 'In water, in the Holy 
Spirit.' The word baptism, both in sacred authors and classical, signifies 
to dip, plunge, immerse. It is alwaj^s construed suitably to this meaning.' 
Notes on New Testament, Andover^ vol. ii, p. 20." — [ Time out.'] 



Mode of Baptism. gg 



DR. DITZLER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 

Gentmemen Moderators : — In regard to the correct trans- 
lation of en hudati — with water — with the Spirit — with fire — you 
must not forget 1. That in half the occurrences it is not en, 
but simply the dative of instrument — with water, etc. 2. By 
the inspired pen the mode is given — pour. The Spirit was 
poured upon them— -they were baptized with it. The fire came 
down upon them — *' sat upon each of them " — baptized them. 
3. We showed that en is used often for with — -"rule with [en) 
a rod of iron." "Anoint en with oil" — "mix en with oil"— 
and I can adduce fortv-one consecutive occurrences of it thus 
in a small part of the Bible — in Numbers and Leviticus, etc. 
It is used where they cleanse a house en with waiter sprinkled on 
it, en with the blood of a bird, etc,, etc. Hundreds of such cases 
occur. Now I have shown where often en means with, where 
they are stated cases of sprinkling and pouring. Let him adduce 
stated or certain cases of immersion in the Bible where en occurs 
indicsiting instrumentaliti/, or even location. I am sustained by 
all the ancient English versions — six; by all the Latin ancient 
and modern, save Jerome, and he renders the hudati where en 
does not occur simply aqua with water. I am sustained by the 
French, Italian, Spanish, Lusitanian and German — mit wasser — 
with water. 

Ms comes up again. We say these little prepositions do 
not, cannot settle any point here. We quoted a number of 
cases, selecting those involving water — yea, Jordan, water, sea — 
a ship is launched eis the sea, parties were to go eis to Jordan, 
meet certain parties eis at Jordan, ds at or on Garmel; people 
came up out of Jordan, Moses drawn ek out of the water; 
Ex. ii, 10; Josh, iv, 16-20; yet no immersion was involved, 
but we know the reverse — they were all on dry land save 
Moses^ he was in a basket floating above water — his basket 
bearing him up. 



100 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

"We showed that eis could not primarily mean into^ and not 
one of the better Lexicons or Grammarians oives into as its 
primary force. We quoted them formerly. As for Dodridge, 
Geo. Campbell or Tillottson, etc., whom Dr. Graves and oth- 
ers quote so often, as philologists they are far from being so 
recognized anywhere by the great scholars of Europe and 
America. McKnight and a swarm of good, pious men, 
quoted by immersionists are ignored in philology and accurate 
criticism by the scholarship of this country. ~Eo body but 
immersionists pay the least attention to them now. Howson 
and Conybeare, immersionists, and Lano^e, we admit frankly 
as oTcat critics, but not the others adduced. But they — 
Conybeare, Howson and Lano-e, and indeed all immers- 
ionists, base their opinions on no scientific or philological 
ground, but on their opinion of Rom. yi. 4, "buried by bap- 
tism into death." Hence their opinion b.ere is of little moment, 
since it is not on any scientific principle of language. And 
Conant, Eaton, etc., will tell us, this is wholly a question of 
'philology based on laws of language. And here an.d here ordy, 
Baptists have based it from the beginning, and we intend to 
hold them to it. As to Dr. Dale's position — his rules of intei-- 
pretation — they are utterly untenable, unscientific, and contrary 
to all the laws of lansruao-e. Words never are formed — never 
take on secondary meanings by the mystical, obscure and 
metaphysical processes he points out. The law of language 
is far more simple than he assumes. He is a fine scholar — in 
research most valuable, but wretched in philology. 

Pindar, Dr. Graves thinks, uses baptidzo for dij:). I^ot so, 
^o dip can be made of it. It will be seen at a reading that it 
cannot mean dip. The allusion is to the waves dashing their 
spray upon the cork "above the net." If the allusion were 
to the weights below pulling the cork under, it would be sink, 
I. e., immersit — but no one presumes it thus ; for the allusion is 
made to the impotent ravings, the abuse, the aspersions of his 
enemies, and the strongest that can rightly be made of it is — 
overwhelm by the waves falling upon it, all pointing to affusion, 
as formerly shown. 

He has taken up much time on the localities of John's 



Mode of Baptism. loi 

baptism, as if it supported dipping. We will account for it 
on Scriptural ground in this speech, not on the mere conjec- 
tures of the Doctor that involve obscurity. Once more, 
Rom. vi, 4, " buried by baptism into death," comes up. But 
we are on baptism with or in water, not a " buried into death." 
He plays on the word '' bury." Hear Jeremiah xxii, 19 : 
" Tell the King he shall be drawn forth outside the gates of the city and 

BURIED WITH THE BURIAL OF AN ASS." 

Here is the same English and Greek word — here twice 
used, no interment, no envelopment — -he was left on top of 
the earth, to rot, be devoured by dogs and vultures. Yet on 
such a word, not involving mode necessarily at all, he relies 
for support. As we said, it applies to any disposal of the 
dead. It is used here metaphorically also, and we want its 
literal meaning. As to what the Doctor heard, a bigoted im- 
mersion lawyer, who got vexed at me, tried to rule me out of 
my right to correct misrepresentations, etc., it is of no account. 
He was an out and out immersionist before the debate, and 
.his opinion is of no moment. 

My Brother says baptidzo is immergo — immerse. Is that 
true? Immergo is not dip, but the opposite. Dip is to put in 
and quickly take out. Immergo, never removes, or takes out its 
object. That must be an emergo. Immergo is to sink in. 
There its force ends. If baptidzo is equal to it, it always leaves 
its object sunk. Whatever living thing baptidzo puts under a 
liquid, it always perishes, as used in all ancient, classic Greek. 
If baptidzo were equivalent to immergo^ whenever it applied to 
living objects, and wherever it put them under any liquid, 
they would perish. If bap>tidzo meant immerse, then the commis- 
sion could mean nothing less than to drown — cause to perish — • 
all nations or the parties discipled. It has no such ]^ew' Testa- 
ment meaning. Hence its religious use vastly differs from its 
classic use, whatever be the mode. 

The Layer Baptism and John's Baptism. 

We now propose to give a just and Scriptural reason for the 
places of John's baptism : for certainly the ordinary reasons 
assigned are altogether absurd. We have these as facts to 
^tart with. L John baptized 2ii first, ^^ beyond Jordan"— 



I02 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

John i, 28; '^ away heyond Jordan" — John x, 40-42, called 
Bethany, Bethabara being 2b forged reading — it is Bethany in 
all ancient MS. versions, and, in the four immersion versions 
of our day — Baptist, A. Campbell, Anderson, Wilson — 
" Christ dwelt in the same place for a time " — John x, 40-42. 
2. John baptized "at Jordan" ejpi, '-'at Enon." The words 
epi^ eis, en, point out the location interchangeably. 3. It 
involves absardity that people should go to Jordan from Jeru- 
salem, where all immersionists tell us there are so many pools 
of water, some forty-five to forty -seven feet deep, all aggre- 
gating some four acres of water, go to Jordan to get enough 
to immerse in. And what of the fact patent to all, that every 
Jew every day of the world, from one to two and three or 
four times a day even, baptized 'himself? Why did John 
leave Bethany for Jordan? then leave Jordan for Enon? 
Reason, the Bible and well-known facts will make it clear. 

Baptism out of the Laver. 

The most perfect historic record of baptism we have, is that 
of the Jews at the ^az;er, running through fifteen hundred years, 
of daily occurrence. In the origin of baptism we see also the 
design of baptism — that it was purely symbolic and not initia- 
tive, nor sacramental. In Exodus xxx. 18-21, we read of the 
laver that stood between the altar of burnt ofierings and the 
door of the tabernacle. "Aaron and his sons shall wash 
{rachats) their hands and their feet (ek) out ofit."^ And 

when they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they 
shall wash with water, that they die not." In Exodus xl, 12: 
" Thou shalt bring Aaron and his sons unto the door of the 
tabernacle of the congregation, and wash them with water f^ 
V. 30, "and put water therein to wash {ek) out of it;" v. 31, 
" Moses, and Aaron, and his sons, washed their hands and 
their feet {ex autou) out of it J' Thus washing was kept up 
daily till the days of Christ. ^tsTow — 

1. We are all agreed that these washings expressed by 
rachats in Hebrew, nipto in Greek, sometimes by touo, were 
baptisms. There is no dispute here. Drs. Carson, Gale, 

* Rachats — out of it — Greek Kai nipsefai ex autou^ niptontai e» 
autou.^ eniptetai ex autou. 



Mode of Baptism. 103 

Fuller, Hintou, Ingham, A. Campbell, all tell us this washing 
was immersion — baptism. It is expressed in Judith xii, 7 ; 
Sirach (Ecclesiastes) xxiv, 31, (same xxxi, 30 ) and in other 
Greek writers as well as Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38, by baptidzo. 

2. Hence A. Campbell : " And the laver — filled with water 
* * in this laver * * the priests always washed themselves 
before they approached the sanctuary." * * u This vessel 
was called in Greek loutaer, and the water in it loutron. * * * 
Paul more than once alludes to this usage in the tabernacle in 
his epistles, and once substitutes Christian immersion in its 
place."* Again; "The divers washing (6ap^z5moz5) of cups, 
etc., and things mentioned among the traditions of the elders, 
and the institutions of the laver were for ceremonial cleansing. 
Hence all by immersion.''^ f Dr. A. Campbell cites the wash- 
ings of the person in Leviticus xv entire, and xvi, as the bap- 
tism to which Paul refers, Heb. ix, 10. J These he tells us 
are Paul's "divers baptisms," "or baptisms on divers occas- 
ions 1 " As if there was any diversity in the kind of " bathings." 
The divers refers to differences in kind, unlike^ different sorts. 
There could be no diversity in the bathings of the same persons 
if all were immersed in water. It is supremely ridiculous when 
he makes (diaphorois) different sorts, refer to different times! 
But they were baptisms — that is settled on all sides. He urges 
that they were all " for ceremonial cleansing.'' This, then, was 
the primary design of baptism and so continued fifteen hun- 
dred years till Christ, A. C. being witness. Carson, Ingham, 
Gale, Brents, as well as Dr. Graves, all agree those washings 
were baptisms. 

The m/)de of those laver baptisms is what we are now to 
consider. 

* Christian Baptism, vol. v, 401. 

t Christian Baptist, 167. See Dr. Brent's Gos. Plan, 338-9, same in 
substance. 

iln Lev. eh. xv, verses 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27. Here are ten 
diverse bathings in one chapter. Their whole flesh is said to be bathed, 
etc. Also Lev. xvi, 26, 27. Lev. xvii, 15, 16. In Num. also xix, 7, 8, 19. 
In aU we have sixteen different bathings mentioned in order to purifica- 
tion. These are therefore called by Paul ' divers baptisms * or baptisms 
on divers occasions " ! ! Ch. Bap. 174, also 177, Did man ever read such 
puerile sophistry ? 



I04 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

1. The priests washed (ex autou) out of the laver, not in it. 
Hence it was not inamersion. They baptized with the water 
of the laver. Yet it was done (ek) out of, not in the layer. 

2. In every place in the Pentateuch where they washed 
(baptized) where the laver occurs, it is either '' wash out of it,'' 
or ^' wash with water, '^ not once is it wash in, or bathe in, in the 
(3-reek. ^ay, in the whole five books of Moses ( Pentateuch ) 
in the Greek wash (ef}%) never occurs hut once where any 
personal washing occurs, and in that instance, it is, as often, 
with. Ezek. xvi, 9, "I have washed thee {en) ivith water, * * 
I anointed thee (en) with oil — " i. e., the oil was poured on the 
person. 

3. But we have some facts still more decisive, if more decis- 
ive could be desired. If anything needing cleansiug — i. e., 
anything ceremonially defiled, was touched to the water, or 
touched by any object, everything touching it became unclean. 
If the unclean touched the water, it became unclean, unless 
" running water," " a fountain," Lev. xi, 36, or pit wherein is 
plenty of water — literally — " gathering together of waters" — 
perpetually supplied with springs. The general law is — 
"whatsoever the unclean person toucheth, shall be un- 
clean." * " He that toucheth the water of separation shall be 
unclean until even."f By the law of Moses, if a person 
touched a dead carcass which divided hoof yet was not cloveu- 
footed, nor chewed cud, was unclean. ** If a Jew touched a 
dead mole, mouse, snail, tortoise, weasel, lizard, chameleon, 
ferret, he was unclean. J "And upon whatsoever any of 
them, when they are dead, doth fall, it shall be unclean; 
whether it be any vessel of wood, or raiment, or skin, or sack, 
whatever vessel it be wherein any work is done, it must be 
put into water, [brought to the water — i. e.,washed~\ and it 
shall be unclean until the even; so it shall be cleansed. And 
every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them idX\e\h,what^oeV€r 
is in it shall be unclean ; and ye shall break it." " Of all meat 
which may be eaten, that on which such water comeih (there is 
the mode of cleansing the meat — 2 Chron. iv, 6, ) shall be 

* Numbers xix, 22. t Numbers xix, 21. 

** Leviticus xi, 26. ^Leviticus xi, 26. 



Mode of Baptism. 105 

unclean : and all drink that may be drunk in every such vessel^ 
shall be unclean.^^ % In Leviticus xv, 2-33, is a detail also of 
means by which any one becomes unclean, as well as in ]^um. 
xix, 9-22. Every such uncleanness required baptism. See 
also Lev. vi, 28; vii, 18-21. 

Hence if Jew, or priest had touched, or dipped hand or 
fingers in the laver, all its waters would have become unclean, 
and emptied out, and the laver purified before it could be 
used. The Jewish Rabbins are full of facts to the same effect. 
"If, therefore, the waters that went above the juncture (of 
the hand) return upon the hands, they Sire unclean."* Hence, 
if the water poured on, or by the other hand dashed above 
the juncture, running down, defiled the purified hand, because 
it had effected purification above that point, how much less 
would they have allowed parties to plunge their whole bodies 
in the laver ? IVie laver was purposely so made that no one could 
touch its water only as it poured out at the places made — the cocks — 
at the base expressly for that purpose — so made that nothing unclean 
could crawl up and die in it, to defile it. See Lev. xi, 33. 

4. Hence, the laver in Solomon's temple for the same rea- 
sons f was set upon twelve molten oxen far up off the floor, 
then it was eight feet nine inches deep, which added to its 
being placed above the level of the floor on the oxen, made it 
twenty-one feet to its top. It stood out in the open way, and 
thus arranged, no one could by design or accident touch its 
waters, only as they ran out of the cocks arranged for that purpose. 
They had to literally wash (min, Gr. ek) out of it, not in it. Tt 
was ten cubits in diameter, five cubits deep — i. e., eight and 
three-quarters feet deep, bulged or flared out, and held, says 
Dr. Gale, the Baptist, quite a thousand barrels of water. The 
water was forced in by machinery at the bottom from a water 
course or aqueduct prepared for that purpose. IsTo one could 
touch its water. To immerse in it would make unclean the 
whole sea of water. To get into it would have required a 
leap of twenty-one feet into the air, catch the brim, roll in, 

t Leviticus xi, 34. 

*■ Horse Heb., Lightfoot ii, 417— Alsop, 38, and many such cases, 

tl Kings viii, 38; 2 Chron. iv, 2. 



io6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and then if not a good swimmer, he would be drowned, as 
the water was nearly nine feet deep, bottom concave. As 
people, male and female, passed constantly, all this would be 
done with garments on. But it becomes altogether ridiculous 
as well as impossible, being also forbidden by the law. 

6. The second temple, like the tabernacle, as far as the 
record goes, had but one laver for both priests and meats to 
be sacrificed. Both the priests and meats were washed with 
its waters. Would they wash both in the same laver? It 
was a positive command not to use the water that had cleansed 
any object as it became unclean. In this laver, at first, there 
were but two cocks, or outlets, at the bottom, but afterwards 
they made twelve. * " The basis of it was so contrived as to 
receive the water which ran out of the laver at certain spouts. 
At these spouts the priests washed their hands and their feet 
before they. entered upon their ministry. For if they had put 
their hands and feet into the laver, the water would have been 
defiled by the first that washed therein. And the sea of brass 
made by Solomon was so high that they could not put their 
feet into it. The Talmudists tell us there were twelve spouts 
or cocks, in the form of a woman's breast, to let the water out 
of the laver, so that the twelve priests who attended upon the 
daily sacrifices, might wash there together." f Moreover, 
Lev. xi, 34, tells the mode of the washing — " that ( meat) on 
which such water cometh — " the water was poured on it. 

6. Josephus, in speaking of the priests washing thereat, 
uses wash and sprinkle alternately and interchangeably — " The 
sea to be for the washing of the hands and the feet of the 
priests " — ^' Whence the priests might wash their hands and 
sprinkle their feet.'^^ "When he had sprinkled Aaron's vest- 
ments, himself and his sons./ J Yet the Bible said he washed 
himself, Aaron and his sons. Josephus was a high priest in the 
apostolic days, and knew just what the washing was. 

7. The Scriptures habitually speak of a person washed 
where only the hands or feet, or both, are washed. So do we 

*See Brown's Antiquities, ii, 139-141, Eatto's Cyclo., art. Laver. 

t Bishop Patrick on Ex. xxx, 18-19. 

X Antiquities, Vni, ch. viii, § 5, 6— III, ch. vi, § 2. 



Mode of Baptism. 107 

constantly in all our tongues. Have you washed ? That is, 
have you washed your face, your hands? In Luke vii, 34-48, 
we learn that it was the custom to wash before meals. The 
term used is "water upon my feet" — eyi. That is, they 
sprinkled their feet, and Christ accepts the woman's tears as 
accomplishing that. In Mark vii, 2, they will not eat with 
defiled, that is, unwashed hands. A. Campbell's version has 
this done "by pouring a little water on them." Yet Luke 
xi, 38, applies baptidzo to this practice. Tobit ii, 3-5, tells of 
a man strangled and cast out in the market (agora). Tobit 
takes him away. Tobit is in the market-place which requires 
baptism before he can eat — Mark vii, 4. He touches a dead 
body — -that requires baptism before he can eat. He says 
" Then, before I tasted my meat, I started up and took him 
away" — the dead body — "and returning, I washed [elousa- 
maen — louo ) myself and ate my meat in sadness." Here lowo 
occurs where Ecclesiastes 34: 31: (Gr. 31, 30 ); Luke xi, 38; 
Mark vii, 4, apply baptidzo. In Mark vii, 2, 3, nipto is so 
applied — washing the hands was baptizing the person. They 
also baptized their cups, pots, brazen vessels and couches 
( klinon ), Mark vii, 4. " They wash — baptize — all things before 
the Sabbath." * Hence the two most ancient copies of the 
Bible in the world, transcribed between A. D. 300 and 325, 
the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts translated the word bap- 
tized; Mark vii, 4, sprinkle. So do eight others of later date, 
and Euthymius, a Greek father of the fourth century, because 
they knew these baptisms were always by sprinkling — not even 
copious pouring of water— for ceremonial purification. Very 
often ancient copyists translated a word where they wished its 
sense understood. The object was to distinguish this Jewish 
practice, never commanded of God, Mark vii, 4, from any 
heaven sanctioned ordinance. Hence baptism is transferred. 

8. The Targum of Jonathan being a paraphrase and not 
literal, as Onkelos and Ben Uzzial, puts it beyond all question, 
aside from these facts. On Exodus xxx, 19, where they were 
to wash out of it — the laver — where the Hebrew is rachats, 
the Targum reads : " They shall take for a washing of purifi- 

* Seg Lightfoot, Chal. and Bap. Lex. a TebaL 



io8 The Great Carrollton Delate. 

cation out of it, and Aaron and his sons shall sanctify (kadash) 
with the waters their hands and their feet." Exodus xi, 30-31. 
Of the laver and its use — the Targum has it thus : " And put 
therein living waters for sanctifying, so that they should not 
fail nor become dead all days," i. e., forever. " And Moses and 
Aaron and his sons received [or took — nasab'] out of it 
[water] for washing, and sanctified their hands and their feet 
out of it^' — ( minnaeh ). 

If these facts do not show how they washed — baptized — out 
of the laver, no words can. The Greek version used by the 
apostles says louo, nipio — wash; Josephus uses sprinkle 
— often interchanges with pour, as will be seen — and the Tar- 
gum of this learned Jew, when he knew all about it, confirm- 
ing it, and the law of God so worded as to allow of no other. 
]^um. viii, 7, shows they sprinkled to cleanse or sanctify; 
Heb. ix, 13, also. 

Here then we have these facts. iTow in Christ's day all 
these baptisms were performed with utmost care. Immer- 
sionists tell us that over all Palestine, Jews had deep — 22 feet 
deep, 16 feet wide cisterns, hewn in some cases out of rocks. 
Some families had two, all full of water. Hence when we see 
from Lev. xi, xv, xvi, entire; ^um. xix entire, compared with 
Mark vii, 4, 8; Luke xi, 38; Eccles. xxxv, 24; Judith xii, 7, 
w^here haptidzo is applied to these washings, and they all assert 
Paul means them by his '^divers baptisms.''^ Heb. ix, 10, they 
tell us the Jews baptized in those cisterns of water! ! What! 
when their law, kept so scrupulously as to ceremonies above all 
else — they violate the plain letter and command repeated so 
often in Moses ; "Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth 
shall be unclean." That if water were in a vessel and anv 
unclean object fell in it, all must be emptied out, and if the 
vessel be wood, washed ; if metallic, it must be burned out. 
See also IsTum. xxxi, 23; if earthenware, broken. All in 
such was unclean, not only that as to ce?^emo7Z?W defilement, but 
actual physical defilement is involved here. Do you suppose a 
man of say ^yq in family would use water for drinking, cooking, 
and cleansing ceremonially, in which for three and four months 
during dry seasons, in the same irater, in a cistern, he, his wife 



Mode of Baptism. 109 

and children every day immersed their entire bodies ? Jews so 
doubly nice they would not allow themselves, in Christ's day, 
to touch a gentile or one unclean, if possible to avoid it, and 
would not go in where Christ was being tried, lest they by 
contact, be defiled — tliey drink water thus used ! ! Yet the 
immersion theory says they didl I N'o sir; they aU baptized by 
affusion. Isow then the laver baptisms extended throu ,;h 1500 
years. Every Jew baptized every day, often several times. 
They generally numbered five and six millions. Let us put it 
at the lowest figure — 1500 years, 365 days in a year, make 
547,500 days. Then multiply those days upon the number of 
Jews — put them at four millions on the average for 1500 years 
— from Moses till the commission was given, we have one 

TRILLION, SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE BILLIONS, FIVE HUNDRED 

MILLIONS, (1,645,500,000,000) of instances of baptism, all by 
AFFUSION, when John began to baptize Jews as a Jew, that 
Christ might be made manifest to Israel. We can now^ see 
the force of '''baptize with water. '^ IlTow then, at first we saw 
that John, when only the few as yet came — no noise, no mul- 
titude yet named — the baptisms at Bethany were so noiselessly 
carried on, that it is only named by one writer, then, incident- 
ally ; so, not a word is said of multitudes at Enon — the noise 
and flush of the crowds are all over. At Jordan we have the 
multitudes — Mark i, v; Matt, ill, 5, "they at Jerusalem," as well 
.as "all Judea," etc. Now ivhy did he go to those three places — 
at two of which were running waters, we know, and plenty of 
it at the first oue'i when so few as yet came, no allusion is 
made to water at all — at Bethany or in Bethany simply. 

1st. Such crowds, with all their animals, had to have, wust 
have water. Round Lake Camp meeting is not there because 
of convenient places to immerse. Camp meetings, armies 
encamped for a few weeks, have to have much water. Here are 
thousands of people for many weeks, some months. Then 
much water was needed. But 

2d. That much water had to be running water by the laiv of 
God. We cited many passages, especially Leviticus xi, 38, 
shows that fountains — so the Syriac and Arabic render Enon ; 
or "gathering together — flowing together" of waters coidd not 



no The Great Carrollton Debate. 

be defiled yhec£i\isQ running off constantly and fresh, clean water 
coming into their place. If it had been even a convenient lake 
100 feet square and fifty deep in middle, the moment one 
washed in it, or an unclean animal, person or thing, fell into 
or stepped into it, or water running from your hands or face 
after ablution had fallen into it, it could not be used. But 
such crowds had to have water, use it for all customary pur- 
poses. Hence the running waters of Jordan were sought. 

The moment the flush of the crowds is over, John leaves 
the hot, low region of lower Jordan ; the lowest spot above 
water on our globe, deep between ranges of hills, in about the 
latitude of Memphis, Tennessee, and so intensely hot, that 
no city or village ever was built upon its banks in that region; 
and we next find him at Enon near Salim,for there was much 
water there, not deep, the word polla never meant deep on earth, 
"many waters" or fountains, is far more correct, as the Syriac 
and Arabic have it. There was enough water in the springs 
of those mountain regions for the numbers coming now for 
all customary purposes. Hence we have here Bible reasoDS 
for all we see. They baptized at Enon, with water. They had 
known no other mode than affusion for fifteen huudred years. 
Custom demands its acceptance here as the recognized mode. 
The primary meaning of baptidzo settles it as the mode. Instead 
of the facts forcing us from the primary import here, they all 
point to it as the only mode. And if we want current or gen- 
eral usage, that has been the usage fifteen hundred years. 'Naj, 
the Jews of those days tell us how much water was necessary 
to their ablutions in general. "They allot a one-fourth part of 
a log for the washing of one person's hands, it may be of two; 
half a log for three or four; a whole log for five to ten, nay to 
one hundred, with this provision, saith Rabbi Jose, that the 
last that washed hath no less than sl fourth part of a log for 
himself." Lightfoot, Horse, ii, 254. A log is five-sixths {f) 
of a pint. One person then washed with nearly one-fifth of a 
pint. Its mode is told us by Pococke also — aqua effusa vase 
with wa.teT poured out of a vessel, cup or bowl. See Maimoni- 
des. 

When it is asked why both Philip and the eunuch went 



Mode of Baptism. hi 

down eis to the water or into it, if you prefer, and why he 
sent not a pitcher for water, if he was to be sprinkled, we 
answer, by the Bible Philip and he recognized, if he had such 
vessels as immersionists suggest, they were all ceremonially 
unclean when used indiiferently thus by an unclean person. 
Hence we. can see why both went down to the water. JEk means 
out of we admit, not like apo in Christ's baptism, which is 
from always when motion is involved, never out of. Yet ek 
often is from, and does not at all imply emergence as the 
many texts cited where the parties came up out of Jordan, 
Moses drawn ek, out of the water, show. Here then are the 
issues : 

Dr. Graves has no proof of immersion. All the facts he 
adduces are ^er/ec% consistent with affusion as the mode all 
the time, ^n often, over and again means loith where the ele- 
ment whose use it indicates, with oil, with water, with blood, 
was sprinkled, was poured on the party ; it says so, giving ns 
raino and oheo as the modes. His en saves him not. It points 
to instrumentality, not location, here ; baptize with water, with 
the Spirit, with fire. The Spirit, the fire, the .water, were not 
localities, but instrumentalities, and en never means in when 
thus used.— [2^me out J] 



112 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SIXTH SPEECH. 

Mr. President: — There are two words entering into this 
discussion, the meaning of which is very important to deter- 
mine. These have already been the subject of much discus- 
sion between us. They are, respectively, en and ei5; the former 
of which it has been conceded means in, and the latter into. 
Now look at our rules. I will read the second one: 

"The literal, which is also called t\iQ grammatical sense of a word, 
is the sense so connected with it that it is first in order, and is spon- 
taneously presented to the mind as soon as the sound is heard. This 
meanmg is always (save in one lexicon, i. e. Stokius) placed first in the 
lexicons, and is knoTvn as i\ieprim.ary meaning." 

Xow we are compelled, by the rules of interpretation, to 
place those whom John baptized in the water, and to admit 
that Christ was baptized into the river Jordan; and my oppo- 
nent will not presume to deny it. He knows that I am right 
in this construction. 

The labored eiibrt of Eld. Ditzler touching the purification 
and ceremonial washings of the Jews was "love's labor lost." 
Why, my dear sir, large books do not necessarily make large 
arguments— by no means. His whole force was spent in beat- 
ing the air. 'No Baptist under the sun ever pretended that 
they were compelled to jump into that laver that hp showed 
us the picture of. l^ever! never! That was made for your 
delectation. But why did John go to Jordan? Why did he 
go to Enon, where water was plentiful, if he only sprinkled a 
few drops on the face of each candidate whom he baptized? 
JSTever did any Jewish priest before resort to these or like lo- 
calities when rites of purification on a large scale had to be 
performed, never. Why, John could have taken them to the 
pool of Siloam, and could have dipped up a pitcher full and 
that would have suflSced for sprinkling a thousand. But I 
want to know how I am committed to the theory that all the 
purifications of the Old Testament were so many baptisms. 



Mode of Baptism. 



1^3 



I will tell him how I will commit myself to it. In every case 
of purification when tavel is used, I will say that was by the 
immersion of the whole body, but in no other cases; and 
there were divers immersions for difierent kinds of purification. 

I will produce just one from many authorities to settle this 

point forever: 

"Rabbi Maimonides. "Wherever in the law washmg of the flesh or 
clothes is mentioned, it means nothing else than dipping of the whole body 
ill a laver; for if a man dips himself all over except the tip of his httk 
linger, he is still in his uncleanness." 

"Everyone that is baptized [as tjiey were, on coming from the market,] 
must immerse the whole body.'''' "In a laver which holds forty seahs 
[about one hundred gallons] of water, every defiled person dips himself, 
except a profluvious man ; and in it they dip all unclean vessels. A bed 
that is wholly defiled, if he dip it part by part, is pure. If he dip the bed 
in the pool, although its feet are plunged in the thick clay at the bottom 
of the pool, it is clean. What shall he do with a j)illow or bolster of skin ? 
He must dip them and lift them out by the fringes." 

Well, my sixth. 

But before I go to that let me briefly recur to another point. 

He said: "Why not bring fresh modern authority in refer- 
ence to the meaning of the passage, 'buried with Christ in 
baptism.' " Well, I will read on this subject from Conybeare, 
and Howson: 

"With Him, therefore, we were buried by the baptism wherein we 
shared his death [when we sank beneath the waters] &c. This clause 
which is here left elliptical, is fully expressed in Col. ii:12. This passage 
cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the primitive bap- 
tism was by immersion." — Notes on Rom. vi. 

Then, Mr. President, you know something about the power 
of evidence. He says: "My friend can bring up a hundred 
authorities in support of his views, but I can bring up hun- 
dreds too." But here it must be borne in mind that mine are 
all made up of Pedobaptist authorities. 

Moses Stuart thus comments on this passage; 

"As many of vis as have become devoted to Christ by Baptism ; as many 
as have been consecrated to Christ by baptism ; or been laid under pecu- 
liar obligations, or taken upon them a peculiar relation to him, by being 
baptized." 

We have been baptized into his death; i. e., we have, as it were, been 
made partakers of his death by baptism; we have come under special re- 
lation to his death; we have engaged to die unto sin, as he died for it; 



1 14 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

we have a communion or participation in death to sin ; comp. Rom. 6:6; 
Gal. 2 : 19. The being baptized into Ms death is, therefore, an internal, 
moral, spiritual thing, of which the external rite of baptism is only a sym- 
bol; for the relation symbolized by baptism is in its own natwe spiritual 
and moral.'''' 

His theory, then, you see, coincided with what I have 
adv^anced. 

Argument. 

I will now resume where I concluded my fifth argument, &c. 

Sixth Argument. — Christ clearly indicated the action 
or his baptism and of christian baptism for all time when 

HE DECLARED THAT IN IT HE SYMBOLICALLY fulfilled all liglltCOUS- 

lUSS. 

Conclusive authority. I ofl'er one authority my opponent 
never questions. In the Wilkes-Ditzler dehate, page 483, Eld. 
Ditzler, speaking of the lustration of Judith, declares that, 
were it immerse, it would at least be "■ eis ten pegen,'^ accusa- 
tive case, with eis into, not "ep^, at." 

So I say now, we have the very expression Eld. Ditzler calls 
for in the declaration of Mark : "And he [Christ] was bap- 
tized of him ns ton JordanenJ^ Christ, therefore, was immersed 
by John into the Jordan. It will not be creditable to any 
scholar to deny it. 

Having developed in a former speech the full meaning of 
this phrase to break the force of my opponent's unsupported 
assertion, I will support my views by two or three authorities. 

The great McKnight, Presbyterian, says: 

"Christ's baptism was not the baptism of repentance, for he never com- 
mitted any sin, but he submitted to be baptized — that is, to be buried mider 
the water by John, and to be raised up out of it again as an emblem of 
his future death and resurrection. In like manner the baptism of belie\'- 
ers is emblematical of their death and resurrection. Preliminary Essay 
on Epistles." 

Joel Jones, LL D., President of Girard- College, in "Jesus 

and the Coming Glory :" 

'' 'Suffer it,' etc, rather aphes arte^ 'suffer at this time.' There is a tacU 
allusion to another time or coming, as if the Lord had said, *I have now 
come to offer the human body [he should have said to poiu* out his own 
soul] as a sacritice for sin, and the baptism of it, which I seek at your 
hands, is a typical showing forth of the sacrifice I am to make ; but I 



Mode of Baptism. 115 

shall come at another time, and at that, my second coming, this rite will 
not be proper, for then I will come without a sin offering, not in a body 
to be sacrificed for, but in glory.' May we not suppose that the Lord then 
first made known to him the mystery of his suffering and his death ? It 
was after that, too, that John called Jesus the Lamb of God who taketh 
away the sin of the world. John could take part with him m this typi- 
cally set forth 'thus it becometh ms.' " 

Kendrick, in his notes on Olshausen, says: 

"The law required not that he should submit himself to John's baptism, 
but it did requh'e that an expiation should be offered, and his willingness 
to offer this, was expressed by Christ in the symbohc rite of baptism ; thus 
his baptism was a type and prophecy of the real baptism of death and 
resurrection." 

S. H. Ford, LL. D., on Symbolism of Baptism, beautifully 

says: 

' 'Jesus was baptized for his death — to image or declare it. He was bap- 
tized to show how an atonement [satisfaction] must be made ; how a 
righteousness must be brought in ; how the law must be met and honored. 
His baptism was /or these great ends, designed to show forth these as its 
object and purpose. For this it was instituted. This gave it, and still 
gives it all its importance. It is for righteousness, it shows how it was 
fulfilled ; it is for remission, it shows how it was secured ; it is for salvar 
tion, it shows it, expresses it, declares it." 

"Thus did the glorious Prince of Life 

All righteousness fulfill. 
In emblem of that fearful strife 

Where, by his Father's will, 
He sank beneath death's darker flood, 

And Angels saw him bathed in blood." 

Seventh Argument. Christ clearly defines the action 

OF HIS baptism, when HE COMPARED THE SUFFERINGS HE WAS TO 
UNDERGO TO HIS BAPTISM IN THE JORDAN. 

He said, ''I have a baptism to be baptized in, and how am I 
straightened till it be accomplished?" 

He certainly did not refer to a slight sprinkling of suffering, 
but to that overwhelming of anguish and suffering, when he 
made his soul an offering for sin ; when the chastisement of 
our peace was laid upon him, when he sank in death, and was 
buried in the grave and rose again. This was symbolically 
fulfilled or foreshadowed in his baptism in the Jordan, and to 
this he evidently alludes in this passage. 

David, as the type of Christ, represents him as saying. See 



ii6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Bailey, p. 232 : Ps. Ixix, 14, 15, "Let me be delivered from 
them that hold me, and out of the deep waters. Let not the 
^Yater£ood3 overflow me, neither let the deep swallow me up, 
and let not the pit shut her mouth upon me/' 

Ps. Ixxxviii, 7, and 16, 17, "Thy wrath lieth hard upon me, 
and thou hast afflicted me with all thv waves. ^ * =^ Thv 
fierce wrath o;oeth over me ; thv terrors have cut me off. Thev 

CD ' \j t/ 

come round about me daily like water; they compassed me 

about together." Also Ps. cxxiv, 4, 5, Ps. xviii, 16, Ps.xxxii, 6. 

Eighth Argumext. But we have the explicit and uxmis- 

TAKABLE TE5TIM0XT OF THE HOLY SpIRIT BY THE PEX OF PaUL, 
TELLIXG US THE ACT WHICH ChRIST RECEIVED AT THE HaXDS OF 

John. Rom. vi, 3-5 — i. e. a burial, a plaxtixg in the like- 
ness OF DEATH. 

If this alludes to icater baptism, which it must, since Christ 
never was baptized in the Spirit, then he was buried by John 
in the waters of the J ovdau, planted in the likeness of his own 
future death. We know that when a person or thing is ^'■buried'' 
it is ^'covered lip /^ so when a seed is planted, it is buried in the 
earth. Here we have two inspired definitions of baptidzo, which 
we must receive, unless we are willing to profane the Spirit's 
teachino's. 

baptize, "to buri/,'' "to planf' to "corrr wholly out of sight.''' 
But the phrase " planted in the likeness of death," is, if possible, 
still stronger. What is the likeness of death ? There is only 
one likeness of death in the universe. Some years ago a reward 
of one thousand o'old dollars was offered to anv artist who 
would paint two likenesses of death. Xo one has yet claimed 
the reward. I will sruarantee that Eld. D. shall have that 
reward, if he will only suggest two. The Holy Spirit says the 
not G, and this implies that there is but one likeness of death, 
as when I maintain that immersion is the act which Christ 
commanded, I maintain he commanded no other act, as sprink- 
ling or pouring. A burial is the likeness of death, and the only 
likeness of death. 

Let Eld. D. exercise his logical talent upon this position and 
overthrow it, or failing to do so, let him honestly and frankly 
admit its conclusive force. It is simply conclusive and unan- 



Mode of Baptism. 117 

swerable. Let him meet it. He will not essay to do it. That 
the apostle does refer to water baptism here, is not only obvi- 
ous to the common reader, but frankly admitted by all the 
most learned Pedobaptists whose works have reached us ; the 
only exceptions are a few controversialists. 

"Cyril, made Bishop of Jerusalem in A. D. 350, writing in Greek, says: 
* For as Jesus assuming the sms of the world died, that having slain sin 
he might raise thee up in righteousness, so also thou, going down into the 
water [katabas eis hudor,) and in a manner buried in the water ^ {kai 
tropon Una en tois hudasi iapheis ) , as he is in the rock, art raised again, 
walking in newness of life.' — ( Ins, iii, on Bap., xii)." 

"Basil, made Bishop of Csesarea in A. D. 370, says: 'Imitating the 
burial of Christ by the iinmersion ( dia ton hajAismatos ) ; for the bodies of 
those immersed (bapHdzom,enon) are, as it were, buried in the water [enihaptai 
to hudaii).^ {On the Holy Spirit, g. XV, 35). Again: "The water pre- 
sents the image of death, receiving the body as in a tomb.' Also, on 
Bap. b. i. c. i, 4 : ' Which we seem to have covenanted by the immersion 
( baptismatos ) in water ( en to hudaii^ ) professing to have been crucified with, 
to have been buried with,' etc." 

"Gregory, of Nazianzen, born about A. D. 330: 'Let us. therefore, 
be buried with Christ by the immersion ( dia tou baptismatos), that we may 
also rise with him ; let us go down with him, that we may also be exalted 
with him.' Disc. 40, on the Holy Bap.^^ 

" John, of Demascus, born about the end of the seventh century : ' For 
the immersion ( to baptisma ) shows the Lord's death. We are indeed 
buried with the Lord by the immersion {dia tou baptismatos, ) as says the holy 
apostle.' — On the Ortho. Faith, b. iv, c. 9." 

"Chrysostom, made Bishop and Patriarch of Constantinople in A. D, 
398: 'For to be immersed {baptiesthai,) and to sink down, then to emerge, 
is a symbol of the descent into the under world, and of the ascent from 
thence. Therefore Paul calls the immersion ( to baptisma ) the burial, say- 
ing, 'We were buried, therefore, with him by the immersion into death.' 
— ( Com. on 1 Cor. Disc, xl, 1 )." 

"Tertullian. — ' Know ye not that so many of us as were immersed, 
{tincfi sumus) were immersed {tincti sumus,) into his death?' (Quo. of 
Bom. vi, 3. On the Resurrection of the ^oc?^/; chap, xlvii.) Again: 
^ We are three times immersed, {ter wiergimur), answering somewhat 
more than the Lord prescribed in the gospel.' *' 

i'LiMBORCH. — "The apostle alludes to the manner of baptizing, not as 
practiced at this day, which is performed by sprinkling of water, but as 
administered of old, in the primitive church, by immersing the whole 
body in water, a short continuance in the water, and a speedy emersion 
out of the water.' — Cmn., in Epis ad Rom. vi, 4." 

"P. Martyr. — "As Christ, by baptism, hath drawn us with him into his 
death and burialj so he hath drawn us out into life. Thus doth the dipping 



ii8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

into water, and issuing forth again signify, when we are baptized/ — Ora. 
cone, the Res. of Christy p. 11. 

"F. Spanhejmius. — 'This rite of immersion and of bringing out of the 
baptismal water was common and promiscuous in the apostolic age. 
Whence the apostle alludes to it, as a rite common to all Cln'istians.' 
(Rom. vi, 4; Col. ii, 12) — Dispu. de Bap. pro Mortu., p. 16." 

"BossuET. — 'The new birth of a behever is more express m immer- 
sion than in bare infusion or aspersion. For the believer being plunged 
in the water of baptism, is buried with Jesus Christ, as the apostle 
expresses it ; and coming out of the water quits the tomb with his Savior, 
and more perfectly represents the mystery of Jesus Christ who regener- 
ates him. Mersion, in which the water is applied to the whole body, and 
to all its parts, also more perfectly signifies that a man is fuUy and 
enthely washed from his defilements.' — In Stennett^ p. 178." 

"Bi3. Felll. — 'The primitive fashion of immersion under the water, 
representing our death, and elevation again out of it, our resurrection or 
regeneration.' — On the Epistle of St. Paul^ on Rom. vi, 4." 

"J. J. Wetstein. — 'John baptized in the river Jordan, in Enon, 
"because there was much water," (Johniii, 23); and Christ, when he 
was baptized, went down into the water, ( Matthew iii, 16 ). And Chris- 
tians, in baptism, are said to put off their clothes ( Gal. iii, 27 ) to be 
washed, (Titus iii, 5), and to be buried under the water, (Rom. vi, 4); 
all which are expressive, not of sprinlding, but of dipping. — Com. on 
Matthew iii, 6." 

" Buddeus.^' Immersion, which was used in former times, was a sym- 
bol and an image of the death and burial of Christ ; and at the same time 
it informs us that the remains of sin, which are called the oldman^ should 
be mortified.' — Dog. Theol.^ 1. v. c. i., § 8." 

"LuTHEE. — ' That the minister dippeth a child into the water, signi- 
fieth death ; that he again bringeth him out of it, signifieth hfe. So Paul 
explains it ( Romans vi, ) * ■•■ -■• Being moved by this reason, I would 
have those that are to be baptized, to be entirely immersed, as the word 
imports and the mystery signifies.' — In Dr. Du Veil, ■ on Acts vii, 38^ 
Vide Lutheri Catechis. Minor.'" 

"Baxter. — 'In our baptism we are dipped under the water, as signi- 
fying our covenant profession, that as he was bm-ied for sin, we are dead 
and bmied to sin.' — Para, on the New Testament, on Romans vi, ^." 

"Dr. Hammond. — 'It is a thing that every Christian knows, that the 
immersion in baptism refers to the death of Christ ; the putting the per- 
son into the water denotes and proclaims the death and bm*ial of Christ.^ 
On Romans vi, 3." 

"Dr. E. Harwoot). — 'When we were, therefore, immersed in baptism 
into the behef of his death,' ( Romans vi, 4). 'With him have you been 
interred in your baptismal immersion.' — Col. ii, 12." 

"Dr. Barrow. — 'The action is baptizing, or immersing in water. •* * 
«- * * rpjjg mersion also in water, and the emersion thence,, doth figure 
our death,' etc. — Woi^ks. voL i, x")p. 5JL&-520o."' 



Mode of Baptism. 119 

" Dr. S. Clakke. — 'Romans viii, 11. And this was most si^ificautly 
represented by their descending into the water, and rising out of it again. 
For as Christ descended into the earth, and was raised again from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, so persons baptized were buried with 
him by baptism into death, (Romans vi, 4), and rose again after the 
simihtude of his resm'rection.' — Three Essays, p. 12." 

"Wesley. — '"Bm^ied with him," alluding to the ancient manner of 
baptizing by immersion.' — {Notes on Roman vi, 4)." 

"Presby. Review. — 'We cannot but regret, therefore, that Mr. Ewing 
should have been guilty of so many gross and glaring blunders in his 
endeavor to make out a case in favor of sprinkling. * * * We have 
rarely met, for example, with a more weak and fanciful piece of reason- 
ing than that by which Mr. Ewing would persuade us that there is no 
allusion to the mode by immersion in the expression, "buried with him 
in baptism." This point ought to be frankly admitted, and, indeed, can- 
not be denied with any show of reason.' — Vol. i, p. 531." 

" OliSHAusen. — 'In this place we must by no means think of their 
own resolutions oidy in baptism, or see no more in it than a figure, as if 
by the one-half of the ancient rite of baptism, the submersion, the death 
and burial of the old man — by the second half, the emersion, the resur- 
rection of the new man — were no more than prefigured,' etc. — Com. on 
Rom. vi, 3, 4." 

"Tholuck. — 'The baptismal symbol itself may be regarded as a figure 
of the death of Christ ; and, accordingly, he in this verse represents the 
Christian undergoing baptism as being in some sort buried with the 
Savior.' 'For the explanation of this figurative description of the bap- 
tismal rite, it is necessary to call attention to the well known circumstance 
that, in the early days of the church, persons, when beptized, were first 
plunged below, and then raised above the water, to which practice, 
according to the direction of the apostle, the early Christians gave a sym- 
bolic import.' — On Romans vi, 4." 

"Bp. Ellicott, on Col. ii, 12, says, referring to Romans vi, 4: "There 
seems no reason to doubt (with Eadie) that both here and Rom. 1, c. 2, 
there is an allusion to the katadusis and anadusis in baptism.' — Com.^^ 

'^Dr. a. Barnes. — 'It is altogether probable that the apostle in this 
place had allusion to the custom of baptizing by immersion.' " 

"Bp. Brown. — 'The comparison of baptism to burying and rising up 
again, ( Romans vi ; Col. ii, ) has been already referred to as probably, 
derived from the custom of immersion.' — In Dr. Smith's Dictionary of 
Bible. Art. Bap. 

"Dr. Beoomfield. — 'There is plainly a reference to the ancient mode 
of baptism by immersion ; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller that 
there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian 
churches, especially as it has so evidently a reference to the mystic sense 
oi' baptism.' ' Wetstein adverts to the figurative use of bury as employed 
of pkinging luider water.' Theophylact observes 'that as we are by bap- 



120 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tism buried in the water, so Christ was buried in the earth.' — Crit. Dig,., 
Oil Romans vi, 4." 

"Conybeabe and Howson. — 'This passage cannot be understood 
unless it be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immersion.' 
— lAfe and Epistles of Paul, vol. ii, p. 209." 

Can any one who has any respect for the authority of God's 
word, or the united learning of eighteen centuries presume to 
deny that these passages refer to w^ater baptism, the act of 
immersion that Christ received at the hands of John, and 
which he enjoined upon all his disciples? It is the part of 
candor to acknowledge it. It would be doing outrage to 
inspiration to deny it. If it does allude to water baptism, 
then Christ was buried when he was baptized, as were his apos- 
tles and all the ISTew Testament Christians. 

I close here my argument on the usus loquendi drawn from 
the records of John's ministry, and have established the fact 
beyond the possibility of successful contradiction or reasonable 
doubt, that John was commanded to immerse, and only to 
immerse, and that he did immerse, and only immerse, those 
whom he baptized, and therefore the blessed Savior and his 
apostles were immersed, and that this was the beginning of 
the gospel dispensation, Mark, by the Holy Spirit, expressly 
tells us, chapter i, 1, 2. 

In reviewino: the eisrht unmoved and immovable foundations 

of the massive argument drawn from John's ministry, I feel 

that I am fully authorized to use the language that Dr. 

Summers used with reference to another question: 

'' My argxmient has nothing to fear from the labor, learning, sophis- 
try, or ignorance of its impugners, * * * as nothing can prove that 
false which is demonstratively true." — \^Time out.l 



Mode of Baptism. 121 



DR. DITZLER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — I congratulate myself that the 
Doctor's argument was so light and unsubstantial, that the 
fall of the gavel destroyed it, as he admits. So I need not 
spend much time with it. 

We certainly endorse his condemnation of the folly of 
Ewing in the wild definition he gave in his Essay or Treatise 
on Baptism. He tells us of the Presbyterian Review, what it 
says of those who do not bow to their opinion on these matters. 
]S"ow Beza, the profoundest biblical critic of the sixteenth cen- 
tury, Moses Stuart and Hodge, two of the most eminent com- 
mentators America has produced, two of which are most 
eminent Presbyterians — either one of them far superior to 
these men in scholarship and far beyond them in fame — all 
assert that Eom. vi, 3-4, is not an allusion to water baptism. 
Why does not the Review condemn themf He had not 
biblical knowledge enough to know thatthey had thus written, 
we apprehend. 

All the authorities quoted by the gentleman in his last 

speech, go on the assumption that the allusion of Rom. vi, 4,- 

is to water baptism. And the entire fabric of the speech just 

delivered, is based upon this sandy foundation. This passage 

is clearly explained by another indited by the same apostle — 

1 Cor. xii, 13: 

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been aU made to 
drink into one Spirit." 

Here Paul declares that all Christians whether they be con- 
verts from Judaism, or whether they be Gentile converts, are 
by one Spirit all baptized into one body. But Dr. Graves 
does not believe. Baptists generally do not believe, that water 
baptism incorporates a man in the body of Christ or makes 
him to drink of his spirit. But there is a baptism as we here 
see that does do that, and this is the same baptism, that is 



122 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

called " one baptism," Eph. iv, 4, tlie effect of which puts as 
into Christ, crucifies us with him — its effect is we are buried 
into death — " delivers (eis) into death always, 2 Cor. iv, 10-11, 
that makes us partakers of " the power of his resurrection." 
This is that "one baptism" of which all true believers par- 
take and of which water baptism is merely a symbol. Of 
v)ater baptism, Paul uses the plural form — Heb. vi. 2 — " doc- 
trine of Baptisms" where Christian baptism occurs, as well as 
of Jewish baptism — ix, 10. 

Water baptism indeed has its value and importance, but 
apart from its spiritual significance, it amounts to nothing. 
As the Apostle Paul says of a Jew, "he is not a Jew which 
is one outwardly in the ffesh : but he is a Jew, which is one 
inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, 
and not in the letter; whose praise is not of man but of God." 
And yet he calls them " Jews," and the outward circumcision 
he calls "circumcision," and in like manner the baptism by 
water, he calls " baptism," notwithstanding it is that spiritual 
baptism that incorporates us with Christ that is the true and 
indispensable baptism without w^hich w^e have neither part nor 
lot in the immunities of Christ's Kingdom. Now this, I 
affirm, and not water baptism, is that to which reference is 
made in Rom. vi, 4, " Buried with him by baptism into death," 
not into water. 

The Doctor thinks I have — or at all events that I ought to 
have — great respect for bishops. Well, as to that, I respect 
a bishop just as I do any other man, not on account of his 
exalted position or of the functions of his office, but for his 
personal merits. I respect a bishop just as he follows Christ. 
In the same way I respect any other Christian whether he be 
a Baptist deacon or a Presbyterian elder. I don't think my 
regard for the office would blind me to any defects or blem- 
ishes in the character of a bishop. I may say the same of all 
others in our church, whether they be officials or merely pri- 
vate members. And therefore I say to those friends that 
when they believe that this is an allusion to water baptism, 
ninety-seven out of every hundred of these witnesses who 
testify thus, assume that it is Jewish Proselyte baptism that 



Mode of Baptism. 123 

Paul alludes to in Rom. vi, 4 — an opinion tliat Baptists and 
disciples wholly reject. Now of what value is my opinion, if 
it is based wholly on an error? You say the only fact, on 
which they based their opinion, was not a fact — it did not then 
exist. Probably baptism in the fifth and later centuries, '^ was 
by immersion, though not always," (Castell, Pocock, etc.) and 
these men held this form of it to have existed before Christ. 
As you reject their only support, you destroy the value of 
their testimony and have no support. Of all the witnesses 
Dr. G. introduces to support his view^s, an average of ninety- 
seven do not believe with him on baptidzo, but with me. I 
readily grant that in the dark ages of superstition, the Jews 
in baptizing Gentiles, immersed them up to the neck for 
hours to soak the Gentile dog out of them and the grace of 
God into them, as they believed with many heathens that 
grace was imparted to the water by the Spirit, and immersed 
them. They did not immerse Jews though, but the}- baptized 
themselves by affusion, save in the later dark ages for rare 
uncleanliness, and then never for mode — no value was attached 
to MODE, but the object was to wash every part — bring all the 
man into contact with the water; and dipping was a very con- 
venient way. 

We challenge Dr. Graves to the task — he cannot find a 

PLACE IN THE WOELD WHERE BAPTISM WAS PERFORMED aS lie avd 

his church perform it, earlier than the fourth (4th) century after 
Christ. He cannot find a place where it was performed by a 
single dip under water, earlier than then. And when his way 
of performing it was first introduced, it caused a split in the 
church, was denounced as a " heresy," an "innovation " by 
the church. He can find in Tertullian, at the close of the 
second or beginning of the third century, where baptism was 
performed by three dips, attended with anointing, giving honey, 
milk, etc., all of which shows how far superstition had over- 
come the simplicity of the faith, and Tertullian admits they 
had not gospel authority for what they did. The moment we 
meet with immersion at all, we meet with it covered all over 
with superstition and innovation. 

How oft must we fight over Romans vi, 4? The Doctoi 



124 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

started off as if he meant a philological argument. The 
moment we took up the gauntlet, for so many years pressed 
upon our people, he flies to Jordan, to Enon, and to "buried 
by baptism into death" — always omitting the last words— 
never quoting it all, or as it is, as a rule. I^ote what Paul 
says is, " Shall we continue in sin ? " ^o. " How shall we who 
ARE dead to sin — [notice the present tense] live any longer 
therein ? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized 
INTO Jesus Christ — not into loater — no immersion here — wei^e 
baptized into his death?" IsTotice now the effects of this. 
He draws a conclusion — makes a deduction — " Therefore we 
are buried \_now, we continue in this state] — through the 
{taen) baptisms, [z. e, of the Spirit] into death.'' The context 
sustains this — he is crucified — he is dead to sin — is alive to 
Christ — all present tense. All Greek Grammars support this. 

Here we are baptized into Christ — baptized into his death. 
Kow then, if that is water baptism it puts us into Jesus Christ. 
To be consistent, therefore. Dr. Graves must hold that baptism 
by water is a saving and regenerating ordinance. The effect 
of baptism into death is to infuse into the recipient a new and 
spiritual life, that like as Christ was raised up from the dead 
by the glory of the Father even so we also should walk in 
newness of life. [N'ow mark, too, the force of the present 
tense, " are buried." On the hypothesis of the reference here 
being to spiritual baptism, the whole matter is clear and con- 
gruous to the last degree; but if the reference be to water 
baptism, then they were still under the water. It is in the 
present tense, sustained by the Greek. Nowif it was a literal 
or physical baptism, then by baptism they were put physically, 
literally, into Jesus Christ's physical body. That is infinitely 
absurd. If the buried into Christ be the effect of water bap- 
tism, it is fatal. Is Dr. Graves prepared to accept the full 
length of his own principles and to concede this renewing 
power or efficacy to water baptism ? It has been already 
shown that different countries have had various methods of 
disposing of their dead, and the Greek word applies to any 
disposal of the dead — on funeral piles, scaffolds, in caves, etc., 
or left on the ground. Thus, Jeremiah xxii, 19, has this con- 



Mode of Baptism. 125 

CGrning Jehoiakim the son of Josiah : " He shall be buried 
with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond the 
gates of Jerusalem." JSTow here a man is said to be buried 
without any covering being implied whatever, but left to 
decay where dogs and vultures could prey upon him. 

And then this same expression, "planted in the likeness of 
his death." what does that mean ? Assuredly it does not 
necessarily imply a covering over. Sometimes when you 
plant a thing it is covered up, sometimes it is not. " We 
shall be in the likeness of his resurrection." ITow if we are 
planted into death, if we are also buried into death, are we 
always under the water, always buried? No, sir, all this 
bespeaks the effect of spiritual baptism, this it is that puts us 
into Christ. Thus you see, from this text, no argument can 
be adduced in favor of immersion. The action there is not 
water baptism : this is not al hided to at all. Now Beza says 
there is no allusion to immersion here. In his commentary 
on the Acts of the Apostles, i, 5, he also says: "the other is 
spoken {aquae effusae) of the water poured by John upon the 
peopleJ^ He held that Johns baptism was by pouring. And 
Territinus, Witsius and the fathers of that day, use the word 
primitive, in contrast, with " apostolical." They mean by primi- 
tive the church after the apostolic age. It is necessary to dive 
deep into those old fathers, else we misunderstand them. It 
is evident that he misunderstands those fathers. Beza, Vos- 
sius, Witsius, Suicer, etc., held that baptidzo meant to wash in 
any manner and that effusion was the Bible mode — that on 
Pentecost, in the house of Cornelius, the jailor, were all bap- 
tized by effusion, as their writings in my hand show. 

Now, then, we have answered all these points. He has 
reviewed his arguments in regard to John's baptizing atEnon, 
near to Salim. We have shown just and scriptural reasons for 
John's going to Jordan — for Philip and the Eunuch going- 
down (eis) to or into the water, in the Bible requirement for 
"running water." He has not met — he cannot meet those 
facts or break their force. Why, in our day, with no such 
laws, we select locations for our own camp-meetings, where 
there is an abundance of pure water. 



126 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Round Lake was selected for this very reason, because there 
was much water there. But it was not for immersion that it 
was needed, for they do not immerse there much, but still 
they need much water, as must be obvious to you all. "We 
have to secure a place where there is much water, when we 
have a ten days' meeting only. We can account for John's 
coming to the Jordan on rational reasons. Dr. Graves, in his 
introductory review of Stuart, p. 15, says : " These ceremonial 
washings were immersions." 

Dr. Gale, A. Campbell, Carson, Cox, Ingham, all do the 
same — all immersionists. 

There, then, you see that he maintains that the ceremonial 
washings were immersions. ]N'ow the laver which we know 
furnished the water for these ceremonial purifications, was so 
constructed that it was a physical impossibility to immerse or 
be dipped in it. It was a large ba^an, whose topmost edge, 
as we have shown you, was twenty-one feet from the floor. 
This was an arrangement purposely adopted for the purpose 
of placing it beyond the danger of contact with aught that 
might pollute it. For, had anything that was unclean onl}' 
touched its water, the whole of its water would have become 
polluted, and in consequence would have had to be emptied 
out, and the laver purified (IS'um. 31, 23; Lev. xi and xv,) 
before it could have been used again. Then Josephus uses 
the word " sprinkle," interchangeably with "wash" here. 
Then we find that in the days of John, baptisms were always 
performed by affusion. John, speaking of his own work as 
in contrast with that of the Christ, whose harbinger he was, 
says: "I indeed baptize you with water." 'N'ow, how 
would they understand that? They would understand it in 
the same sense in which they had used the term ever since it 
had been instituted and observed for fifteen hundred years. 
When Dr. Graves gave us his views on the declaration of 
John, that Jesus should baptize them with the Holy Ghost 
and with fire, he explained the fire as relating to hell. The 
words of John, if paraphrased in accordance with Dr. Graves' 
inteipretation of them might be thus rendered. I will bap- 
tize yon with water— ho will baptize you with the Holy Spirit 



Mode of Baptism. 127 

— but it will do yo i no good, for then he will send you down 
to hell, the last one of you! Who is crazy now, Dr. Graves 
or Greville Ewing ! Dr. Graves lays great stress on their 
coming up out of the water, and makes en to mean in instead 
of ivith. But even the fact of their having been in the water 
is no evidence whatever of their having been immersed in it. 
It is recorded in the book of Joshua, that the children of 
Israel " stood still in the Jordan," but they certainly were not 
immersed in it, for in the bed of the river where they stood, 
there was no water at all. Mr. Campbell thought he had 
found one or two cases where apo means "out of" the water. 
But he utterly failed to establish this fact, and all scholars, 
Conant, Anderson, the Baptist Bible, at last abandoned the 
theory entirely. It is never said of Christ, therefore, that he 
"went out" of the water. Immersionists have had to aban- 
don that interpretation of the term, which they had relied on 
to prove that he did come up "out of the" water. I am per- 
fectly willing to believe that Philip and the Eunuch went into 
the water, but I see no reason for supposing that thej? were 
immersed in it, as M. Stuart, Baumgarten, Bloorafield also 
agree, and many others. 

How did the Pharisees and Jews (Mark vii, 3-4,) immerse 
themselves? They could not have done so by making use of 
the cisterns which had been constructed to hold water for 
family use: For, if a man had immersed himself in them, he 
would have had no more w^aterthat could be used for his pur- 
pose of purification, drinking, cooking, or any purpose, for 
the space of three or four months. But it is certain that they 
were not subjected to such a deprivation as this, for we are 
told (Mark vii, 3-4,) that "the Pharisees and all the Jews, 
except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradi- 
tion of the elders. And when they came from the market, 
except they w^ash, [baptize — baptisontai'] they eat not. And 
many other things there be which they have received to hold, 
as the washing [baptism] of cups and pots, brazen vessels and 
of tables." Kow, here the Pharisees baptized themselves 
every time they came from market, and the Jews would 
not eat without first brptizing themselves. And besides 



128 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

this, they had other superstitious reasons for these washings 
or baptisms, which were of more than daily occurrence, and 
these could not have been performed by immersion, as a new 
cistern of water would be needed at every baptism. !N'ow, 
nothing is more easy than to see how a people, thus familiar 
with, and inured to, this kind of ceremonial observance, 
would understand the words of John. When he said ^'I bap- 
tize you with water," they would promptly understand that, 
as baptism was always by affusion, so it continued when the 
same word was used. We saw where one man baptized with 
hail — little particles of hail. 

^ow, let us glance at the meaning of the term primary. 
According to Webster, it means, first, in order of time, original, 
radical. But according to Dr. Graves, the primary meaning 
is the current meaning of a word, the most common meaning 
in which, w^hether in writing or speaking, the mass of the 
people commonly employ it. According to my understand- 
ing of language, the primary meaning of a word is the mean- 
ing which it had at first, the earliest meaning which we can 
trace in the use of the word. In my sense of the term, pri- 
mary, as applied to the meaning of a term, is the first in 
historical order. Now, nothing is more clear than that the 
original or primary meaning of baptidzo is to sprinkle. I 
willingly concede that it did afterwards come to mean immerse, 
but this certainly was not its original or primary iuiport, nor 
its leading one — and dip was not a meaning at all. Nay, this 
we proved by the best lexicons in the world. We proved it 
by an appeal to seven or eight of the greatest and most 
learned immersionists that Europe and America could pro- 
duce during the last three centuries. We proved it by an 
appeal to classic usage, and found the facts to be overwhelm- 
ing. We proved it by the universal law of all Semitic and 
Aryan languages — the only ones with which the Bible or we 
are concerned. We demoTistrated it to be contrary to all the 
laws of language to travel from immerse or dip, to pour or 
sprinkle — wash or cleanse, intoxicate or drench, overwhelm 
or overflow. We showed, from a host of examples, elabor- 
ated, that words properly to immerse, primarily meaning to 



Mode of Baptism. 129 

immerse or dip never — no, in no instance ever came to have the 
meanings baptidzo confessedly has. But I showed also that of 
over Jifty words, the universal law of all languages is to inten- 
sify as they go — expand meanings, and the words meaning 
[)rimarily to sprinkle, to moisten, where it was by affusion, 
came to mean all that bapto, all that baptidzo, yea, all that 
tabhal means. Hence, being backed by such facts, then demon- 
strated as accurately as a mathematical problem, it cannot be wrong. 
Sprinkle is the primary meaning of baptidzo, and its prevailing, 
current usage was affusion, always so, when used by Jews, up 
to the commission. — \_Timeout.~] 
9 



[30 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SEVENTH SPEECH. 



[ Replication.] 

Mr. President: — I really, for the first time, bccrj^K" a 
P-ttle shaky when he made that assertion that "with on*- i' ;! 
stroke, he was going to annihilate me." I let my bi'otlicr 
here sharpen my pencil ! Now, what was the point he mad*', 
that was going to be so damaging to my side? It was tlli^: 
"That every one of us was baptized by the Spirit at the sainr 
time." Thus the dark storm broke in its harmless fury, iind 
swept not so much as a leaf from the trees. I never heaid 
such a fearful threat before. Unless I expose this fallacy of 
this favorite position of my opponent, as it is of sprinkler>^ 
generally, every time he brings it up, it may be claimed by 
his friends, and the casual reader of the bopk, that it has not 
been answered, therefore, I meet it again right here- for tlic 
last time. 

He appeals to 1. Cor. 12, 13, in support of his assertion. 

'Now J will the reader read this passage : 

"For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether 2ve ht 
Jews or Gentiles, whether tve he bond or free; and have been all made to 
drink into one Spmt." 

Literally. '-^ En hcni pueiimati^^^ in one spirit we have all 
been immersed into one bocly,^^ and this body, as every one 
who will read the chapter can see, is the visible church. Bap- 
tism is the rite by which one is forrnallv united to the church. 
So Elder D.'s Discipline teaches, and in this, all creeds agree 
and can justly appeal to John 8, 5: except a man be born of 
water as well as the spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom 
of God — which is here the visible church — something on the 
earth. See verse 12. 

This position is demonstrable, for it is evident that what- 
ever baptism this was, it introduced the recipient into the visi- 
ble churcli of Christ. He says that the body here is the 



Mode of Baptism. 131 

church on earth. But every intelligent Bible reader knows 
that the baptism in the Holy Spirit, occurred but on two 
occasions, viz., at Pentecost and at the house of Cornelius. 
That it did not introduce any one into the body of Christ, is 
evident, from the fact the apostles and disciples, in Acts 2, 
were already members, and Cornelius and his family after- 
wards were baptized, to be introduced into the church. This 
passage then, cannot allude to the baptism in. the Spirit, and 
therefore, must to water baptism. 

3. And he says, with as little reason, and against the critical 
authority of the world, that Eph. 4, 5, also refers to spiritual 
baptism. Then the Quaker is right — there is no water bap- 
tism binding upon the church, for there is to-day but one 
baptism, or, as I have shown, one immersion, as the word 
baptisma signifies. Mark how univocal the principles of 
Christianity. *' There is only one Lord, and one faith, and one 
immersion, and one hope and one body," or church. The one 
immersion is the profession of the one faith in the one Lord, and 
introduces the subject having the one hope, into the one body, 
or church of Christ. Dr. Barnes, (see notes in loco,) denies 
that this refers to the baptism of the Holy Spirit, as do the 
best expositors. 

There are a few other things I wish to dispose of before 
advancing with my argument. 

4. After all that has been said about Mr. Ewing, I wish you 
to know how the sober scholarship of his own church regarded 
him and his position on baptidzo, and I wish to apply the 
remarks of the Review with all their force to my opponent : 

Peesby. Review. — "We cannot but regret, therefore, that Mr. Ewing 
should have been guilty of so many gross and glaring blunders in his 
endeavors to make out a case in favor of sprinkling. . . . "We have rarely 
met, for example, with a more weak and fanciful piece of reasoning than 
that by which Mr. Ewing would persuade us that there is no allusion to 
the mode by immersion in the expression, 'buried with Him in baptism, ' 
This point ought to be frankly admitted, and, indeed, cannot be denied 
with any show of reason.^' — Vol. i., p. 531. 

I add this testimony to the host of Pedobaptist authorities, 

I brought forward in my last speech, and I close ray proof 

on this point — that Paul, in Rom. vi, 4, does refer to water 



n,2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



baptism. Indeed, it ought to be admitted by Elder D., for 
it cannot, with any show of reason, be denied. 

But he says: Paul uses the plural baptisms in 1. Cor. 9, 10. 
Granted. There never had been immersions by different per- 
sons, previously discussed, as the immersion or baptism that 
John administered, and those administered by the disciples 
.before the death of Christ, and the baptism of the apostles 
after the ascension of Christ, and the baptism of Apollos, (Acts 
xix,) and of Peter, and of Paul, and the baptism in the Holy 
Spirit which had occurred to be repeated no more. All ques- 
tions respecting the relative value of these baptisms,, needed 
no longer to be considered — they had been sufficiently dis- 
cussed and settled, so they should go on. 

4. He told you that ninety-seven out of every hundred 
commentators affirm that it was Jewish proselyte baptisms 
that Paul alluded to in Rom. vi, 41 He has not produced one 
standard expositor who does so teach, and he can find but one 
or two modern controversialists who do so teach : mark if 
he does. 

5. For the sake of a little present effect, he challenges me 
to find an instance, before the fourth century, of a baptism as 
Baptists now administer it — by a single immersion. This is 
like his previous assertion, that in all the classic writers, where 
baptidzo put one under the water, it invariably destroyed life. 
But he cannot tempt me to run off into a historical discussion. 
I meet his challenge with the baptism of John. I meet it by 
the baptism of the disciples, acting under the eye of Christ. 
I meet it by the invariable practice of the apostles. I meet it 
by the invariable practice of the T^ew Testament churches. 
I meet it with the universal practice of the apostolic churches, 
down to the time of Tertullian, who is the first to inform us 
that those churches that finally fell away into the great apostacy, 
commenced to practice three immersions, which Tertullian is 
careful to tell us is more than is to be found in the Scriptures. 
It was this apostate party that, at this same time, introduced, 
with other rites, as salt, chrism, and exorcising the devil, the 
practice of infant baptism. 

6. Strange to say, he returns to Rom. vi, 4, and emphasises 



Mode of Baptism. 133 

lliL' English version, " We are buried," and says iliey were all 
then, when Paul wrote this, in a buried state, and if it refers 
to water baptism, then they were all then under water, and 
remained so while thev lived, 

I think once answering a position is enough. !N"eed I say 
again, that he knowns as well as I do, that the verb here is in 
the Aorist, which is a past tense, and should be rendered as 
Conybeare and Howson do, and all critics, " Were buried 
with him by baptism." I will say distinctly, that no Greek 
Grammar will support him in his translation and assertion. 

Touching Beza's opinion as to whether the allusion is to 
water baptism in Rom. vi, 4, I will notice when he produces 
Beza's language in his own words. Beza thought that haiptidzo 
signified to immerse, to dip, and nevQv to wash, except by a figure. 

8. He affirms that *' Yossius, Witsius, Suicer, held that bap- 
iidzo means to wash in any way.''^ 

Suppose they did, to wash does not mean to sprinkle, far from 
it. But I know that Elder B. mistakes and misstates what 
Beza says. Here are Beza's words : 

" Neque v-ero, baptidzo eignificat la^are, nisi a consequential^ 
Which I translate: ^tsTeither indeed does baptidzo signify to 
wash, except by consequence — [i. e.^ by the figure of speech, 
■called metonymy, where the effect is put for the cause]. 

He could not have elsewhere said that baptidzo properly 
means to wash in any way, for he says explicitly it never 
means to wash at all, except by consequence. 

In his Letter 2, to T. T.^ as quoted by Ingham, Hand Book, 

p. 90, Beza says: 

Beza. — -^^^ui baptidzo signifies to dip, since it comes from, bapto, and 
-since things to be dyed are immersed "(On Matt. iii. 13). He admits that 
•some have disputed respecting immersing the whole body in the ceremony 
<of baptism; but he maintains that " there is no other signification of the 
verb hamad, which Syrians use for baptize." " It answers," says he, ''to 
the Hebrew tabal, rather than rachatz''' ( on Matthew ) Elsewhere he says : 
^'Christ commnaded us to be baptized; by whi^h word it is certain im- 
mersion is signified." — Lei. 2!id to T. T. 

That you may see how well Vossius sustains Elder D.'s 

|)Osition. I will read : 

Vossius* — "In our baptism, by a ^eontinuance mider water, the burial 



134 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of the body of sin, or the old Adam, is represented. The similitude con- 
sists in this: That as a corpse is overwhelmed and pressed by the earth, so, 
in baptism, a man is overwhelmed in water." &c. — Dispu, de Bup.^ dispu. 
iii., thes. 4. 

Again : 

"That John the Baptist and the apostles immersed persons whom they 
baptized, there is no doubt." — Dispu de Bap.^ Disp. i. ^ 6, 

He says that cliaritj alone compels ns to retain sprinkling 
in our churches ! Turrentine's maxim is ours — '^ The appoint- 
ment of God is to us the highest law, the supreme necessity.'' 

'Nor do I understand that Witsius sustains him, but quite 

the contrary. Let one or two quotations suffice to show this. 

Referring to Romans, he says : 

Witsius. — "Immersion into the water represents the death of the old 
man, in such a manner as shows that he can neither stand in judgment to 
our condemnation, nor exercise dominion in our bodies, that we should 
obey his lusts." — (Econ. Fosd.^ 1. iv., c. xvi. 

Again : . • 

"It cannot be denied, that the native, signification of the words bapteii^ 
and baptidzein, is to plunge, to dip." — CEcon. Fced.^ i. iv. 

Had this learned and candid scholar lived in this day, he 
would have learned that Elder D. can deny it, day after day^ 
though he can bring no proof to sustain him. 

Suicer sustains him just as Vossius and Wetstein do. 

Other points in his last speech, I may notice in my next, as 
I wish to advance my argument before my time expires. 

He shall not complain of me, as he did of Conant and A. 
Campbell, that I have little or nothing to do with the Bible in 
this discussion. I intend to make it " the man of my counsel, 
the lamp to my feet, and the light to my path in this contro- 
versy. I say to you again, it is with this Word jSrst and last 
of all we have to do. If Elder Ditzler made one impression 
stronger than another upon you this morning, it was that it is 
a most difficult, if not an impossible matter for the most 
renowned scholars of earth to ascertain what the simple term 
hajptizo means in the Commission ; that they do not agree 
among themselves, nor even with themselves, believing it 
means one thing one year, and convinced that they were mis- 
taken the next; giving one definition this year and another 



Mode of Baptism. 135 

tlie next. What, then, about the common people who have 
only the simple word of God? llow are they to know any- 
thing about their duty, since scholars cannot tell them? He 
even affirmed that the Greek of the New Testament cannot he 
teamed from its meaning in classic Greek or from classic lexicons ! ! 
If this is so, then no man on earth can understand a/ii/ part of 
the ITew Testament to-day, to say nothing of bapiidzo, and no 
man since the death of the last apostle has understood any 
part of the IN^ew Testament Scholars know no more than the 
most unlearned. The 'New Testament, then, was not given in 
a language known to earth, for all can see, if the New Testa- 
ment was not given in the Greek that can be interpreted 
correctly by the standard lexicons of the Greek, then Greek 
scholars, no more than the ignorant, can know what it means. 
The Holy Spirit should have given a lexicon of the Greek of 
the New Testament, and failing to do this, the I^ew Testament, 
according to Elder Ditzler, is a book in a tongue unkown to 
this world, not a revelation of Jesus Christ, as he declares it 
to be. It is the untenable system which Elder Ditzler repre- 
sents, that forces him to take such an irreverent and absurd 
position. There is no foundation whatever for it, and I de- 
mand of him, if he presumes to re-affirm it, that he bring 
forth some respectable authority to support it, and I promise 
him and you that when I come to my argument from the 
classic Greek and lexicons I will meet it fully. He keeps 
fully three days ahead of me when it is his duty to follow me, 
and I prophesy that when I get to his lexicons, and Greek and 
Syriac, he will fall back four days behind me, trying to do the 
work he should do to-day. I now advance in my argument in 
direct support of the proposition. 

The Argument from the Commission. 

x\fter Christ had risen from the dead, he met his eleven 
apostles by appointment in a mountain in Galilee, some sixty 
miles from Jerusalem, and then he enlarged the commission 
under which they had been preaching and baptizing. Prior 
to this, they had been commanded not to preach beyond the 
confines of Judea, into a city of the Samaritans they must not 
enter; but from this time onward they were to preach the 



136 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

good news of his kiagdom to the ends of the habitable earth 
and establish churches to which the doctrines and ordinances 
w^ere to be delivered by the apostles as they had received 
them from the Head of the church. 

It is with this Commission, with its special enactments, that 
we have to do in determining this question, and our personal 
duty. What did Christ command his apostles to do ? is the 
question. Will any one who has respect for Christ or his 
word intimate that there is anything indefinite or ambiguous 
connected with this word baptidzo any more than about any 
term or word in the language in which he instituted the other 
ordinance of his church — the supper? [N'otice these words : 
"Jesus took bread and brake it and gave it unto them, 
and said ' labete, phagete, touti esti to sottm mou.'^* Is there any- 
thing ambiguous about these terms, translated according to 
their primary and obvious meanings, take, eat, this is my body? 
!N'ot the least. There is not an accountable being so illiterate 
as not to understand these words and the acts to be per- 
formed as readily as the best scholar. But take these words 
and manipulate them, as Elder Ditzler did baptidzo yesterday, 
and the common people would be thrown into confusion and 
doubt, Webster gives forty definitions of take, and among 
these "to comprehend," "understand;" a«d he gives six 
meanings of "to ea^," and one of these is. "to believe.^' Kow, 
what would you think of the man, though professing to be an 
expounder of God's word, who should stand up and teach you 
that all you need to do is to contemplate the elements, take 
them in with your eyes, and understand them, devour them 
with your imagination, and believe on them, but not literally 
take them in your hand and eat them physically? 

And yet, strange as you may think, this form of observing 
the supper is actually practiced in a " liberal !" church in Boston. 
But is it any more strange or sinful thus to deal with one of 
the positive ordinances of Christ than another? May mathetuo 
and baptidzo be thus treated, translated by some secondary or 
metaphorical, far-fetched and unnatural significations, to the 
like perversion of the true meaning, as such meanings must 
distort and pervert it ? WhOj under the heavens, should dare 



Mode of Baptism. 137 

to stand up in the name of Christ Jesus and translate the 
terms of his plain, positive command by secondary, unnatural, 
fio:urative and fanciful definitions? 

The inexorable law for the interpretation of all languages is, 
that the literal, which is the primary and obvious meaning of 
any and all terms, must be taken, unless the context forbids 
it, and then, and then only, must the secondary meaning be 
sought. 

]!!^ow, I ask at the outset, can we have the moral right to 
suppose that the least ambiguity attaches to this law, to any 
term or phrase of it? To make such a charge against the 
laws of this State would be to charge the law-makers with 
imbecility and ignorance, or wilful dereliction of duty. But 
Christ, the Divine Son of God, is the author of this law, and 
he is AUwise and Omnsicient, and if this law is ambiguous in 
any feature of it, then is it not only not binding upon the race, 
but Christ has forfeited all claims to the respect of the world, 
not only as a law-giver, but as a savior, since he must design- 
edly, like the tyrant Graccus, have mystified his law that the 
people might be thrown into doubt and uncertainty, and so 
violate it and become obnoxious to the penalty. 

Mr, President, I wish to impress this one fact upon the 
minds of all who hear me this day, the form^ the specifio act or 
acts to be performed constitute the rite, and therefore the 
term selected to enjoin it must necessarily be a modal 
term — i. e., a word of specific and not of generic or general 
signification. This, I think, must be self-evident to every 
thoughtful mind. If Christ did not use a modal word, but 
selected one having diverse and opposite significations, and 
therefore ambiguous, to express the action of baptism — a term 
that the common people cannot understand and the best 
scholars of earth cannot agree about, then it is evident that 
no one can know of a certainty whether he has obeyed the 
law or- not, and this very ambiguity releases the world from 
attempting to obey it. 

ILLUSTRATION : 

If the ofiicers and courts of this State could not determine 

^he rate of t^cxes which the Legislature attempted to fix, then 



138 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

no taxes would be paid until the Legislature met again. I 

therefore agree with one of the world's greatest philologists: 

"To obscui'e the word that describes the form [baptism] is, therefore, 
to obscLU'e to the mind of the recipient the nature of the rite, the specific 
ideas sj^mbohzed in it, and the obligations to which it binds him." — 
Conant. 

Whenever I violate this law you may all know that as a 
man and a scholar, I am conscious that I cannot sustain my 
position by the just laws of interpretation and fair argument, 
and I think I should be called to order. I do affirm that this 
Commission of Christ, though one term of it is untranslated, 
is as easy to be understood, when taken in connection with Chrisfs 
baptism, as the command to '' take and eat " is, when read in con- 
nection w^ith the history of the supper. I stand here not to 
make it plainer, but rather to show in how many ways its 
Scriptural signification can be indubitably demonstrated. 

Mr. President, I will read the Commission : 

'' Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with 
you alway, even unto the end of the world. — Matt, xxvii, 19-20. 

Mark records it thus : 

"And he said unto them, go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel 
to every creature. He that beheveth and is baptized shall be saved ; but 
he that believeth not shall be damned. " — Mark xvi, 15, 16. 

I submit it to you. Gentlemen Moderators, and to this intel- 
ligent audience, if I am not compelled to interpret the terms 
of this commission in their literal, most obvious, and most 
usual signification; and if they are so translated by any one, 
have we not a right to say the specific requirements of the law 
are as easily to be understood as those in which Christ insti- 
tuted the other ordinance? And I ask you all once more, 
with an emphasis, ought not and will not any attempt on the 
part of either Eld. Ditzler or myself to translate the simple verb 
bajytidzOy which determines the act, by secondary, metaphorical 
and far-fetched meanings meet with a signal condemnation on 
the part of every fair-minded and Christian man and woman 
in this house? IN'ow, mark which of us is guilty of such 
an outrage upon law and language, for it must be in order to 
mvstifv and mislead. 



Mode of Baptism. * ' 139 

Let us not blaspheme Christ by charging him with the sin and 
shame of having given us a law in terms so ambiguous that 
the educated, and much less the uneducated, cannot understand. 
Let us remember that this law was given to the common peo- 
ple, and they are required to understand and obey it. The 
Lawgiver nowhere requires them to go to the learned, the rabbi 
or priest, to learn what he meant by the command to be baptized 
— never. He never required of any mortal to become proficient 
in Greek and Hebrew, Arabic and Coptic, in Syriac and Sans- 
krit, and forty other tongues, in order to understand what he 
meant, and he knew they would and could be only tolerably 
well instructed in the rudiments of their own native tongue, 
and therefore, he taught the people in, and the Holy Spirit that 
inspired the sacred writers, selected such terms as the common 
people, by the use of their common understanding, could un- 
derstand without a reasonable doubt as to their meaning. 

The proposition I stand here to support from this commis- 
sion, " which is the only law we have to baptize any one, " as 
my opponent himself affirms, is this : 

IMMERSION IS THE ACT CHRIST COMMANDED HIS APOSTLES TO 
PERFORM EOR CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 

I propose to support this proposition by one main argument, 
to which all others will be subsidiary. 

SYLLOGISM. 

L In commanding his apostles to baptize, Christ used but 
one pure Greek term, viz bavtidzo. 

n. The literal, primary and most general signification of 
the word baptidzo, as its usus loquendi abundantly determines, 
is to immerse, or an equivalent meaning — and, there being 
nothing in the context to cause this meaning to be rejected, 
ergo, 

in. Christ commanded his apostles to perform but one act, 
and that act was to immerse. 

The major, or first premise, no one denies. 

It is the minor premise, the second statement, about which 
there is any controversy, and this is with but a few men. 1 re- 
joice to say but very few men deny this premise, and it is a 



140 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

matter of profound regret to me that a professed Christian ' 
scholar can be found willing to stand up and deny it — a pro- 
position as true and demonstrable as any theorem in Ge- 
ometry. 

My first argument in ascertaining what Christ .meant his 
apostles and his churches after them in all ages to understand 
by the term baptidzo, is, 

I. He undoubtedly intended to perpetuate the same bap- 
tism that he originally had instituted to be administered by 
John the Baptist, and which he himself and his apostles, to 
whom this was addressed, had received, and the very same 
act which the}^ had been performing by his authority abd un- 
der his eye, since the baptism of John, for more than three 
years. 

We cannot reasonably suppose that Christ intended to in- 
stitute a new and difl'erent rite inform. He intimates no 
change in the rite, only an enlargement of the field of their 
labor. 

I cannot more forcibly impress this upon you than by our 

rule quoted from Blackstone : 

" To interpret a law, we must inquire after tlie will of the maker, which 
may be collected either from the words, the context, the subject-matter, 
the effects and consequences, or spirit and reason of the law. ( 1 ) Words 
are generally to be understood in their usual and most known signifi- 
cance ; not so much regarding the propriety of Grammar, as their gene- 
ral and popular use. * ^ ( 2 ) If words happen still to be dubious, we 
may establish their meaning Irom the context, etc., of the same nature 
and use is the comparison of a law with lairs that are made by the same 
l^islator, that have some affinity with the subject^ or that EXPRESSLiY REIjATE 
TO THE SAME POINT. " — Blackstone^ s Com. vol. 1, pp. 59-61. 

Can we doubt the will of the make?' of this law of baptism 
found in the commission ? Compare it with the law of bap- 
tism made by " the same legislator, " and administered by his 
first commissioned ofiicer, John the Baptist. Have they not 
an intimate " affinity ? " Do they not '' expressly relate to 

THE same point ? " 

If Christ had designed to change the action of that rite, here 
is the very place where he should have clearly stated the fact 
and explained the new action. But not the slightest intima- 
tion of any change in the act He does not even name the 



Mode of Baptism. 141 

element in which they were to baptize, simply because there 
was no need of it, either for the instruction of the apostles, or 
of his churches in after ages, with the Gospels in their hands. 
The apostles knew that they had been baptized in water, that 
Christ himself had been baptized in water, and they had for 
over three years been baptizing in water, and they must have 
understood Christ to command them still to baptize in water, 
observing the same act which he and they had received at the 
hands of John. 

^o reasonable man can doubt that this was anything more 
than an enlarged command to administer the same act for 
baptism their Master and themselves had received, and which 
they had been administering to thousands, for years past 

Now, I have proved by no less than eight unanswerable 
arguments, and by the concurrent testimony of a host of the 
most learned Pedobaptist scholars and divines, that John did 
immerse his disciples in water, and therefore that he did 
immerse Christ and his apostles. 

Again, if one conclusive argument is as good as a thousand, 
and it is, then I need not utter another word in support of this 
proposition. I can give Eld. Ditzler the remaining three 
days, and three years more, and still claim the verdict from 
every candid mind, that Christ in giving this commission, 
unquestionably commanded his apostles to still administer the 
rite in the exact form that he and they themselves had re- 
ceived it, and as they had been administering it to others up 
to that hour. . 

You can see that having previousl}^ established the act 
administered by John, designated by this very term baptidzo, 
it becomes the fixed, immovable and indestructible staple, to 
which the whole chain of aro:ument may with safety be 
attached. 

John administered but one act, and that was immersion, 
and this one act and no other, Christ administered for three 
years in Judea, and now commanded his apostles to admin- 
ister to believers in all nations. 

My next argument is, 

2. If Christ had intended water to have been poured, or 



142 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

sprinkled or poptized upon the subject, he would have said so. 
He would have used cheo, with a preposition, if to pour. If to 
sprinkle he would have used raino or rantidzo, with a preposi- 
tion. If to wash a part of their bodies, iiipto. If all their 
bodies, luo; but he never once used one of these, or a derivative 
or compound of any one of them to indicate the act, but baptidzo, 
a term specific in its signification, the primary and natural 
signification of which is to immerse, to dip, to plunge. If 
Christ designed to enjoin the application of water in anyway, 
without specifying the mode, he could have used a term of 
generic signification, as kathairo, without en or eis before the 
element, water, meaning to cleanse, to purify, leaving the man- 
ner of application with the disciples, and then any application 
of it would have answered. 

3. My third is, had Jesus commanded either sprinkling or 
pouring, or the application of water in any way, in this com- 
mission, the churches in future ages would not have known 
upon what part of the person to apply the water, whether to 
the feet, or hands, or head, or inwardly. The law would 
therefore be null and void, for lack of definiteness. But 
translate it immerse, and there is no indefiniteness about it — 
the disciple must be dipped into water, the whole body envel- 
oped by the element. 

4. Another and conclusive argument is that Christ com- 
manded the persons of the disciples to be baptized, and not the 
water to be baptized on them. 

It is claimed by my opponent that Christ enjoined the 
sprinkling and pouring of the disciples as well as immersing 
them in this command. That it is simply impossible, can be 
''demonstrated to every mind." — \^Time out^ 



Mode of Baptism. 143 



DR. DITZLER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — Again we will give a few facts 
on primary meanings and on tropical or derived meanings. 

In Grimm and Bopp, Fowler's History, English Grammar, 
Max. Muller's different works, Koah Webster, M. Stuart, the 
following facts will be found. In some cases " the idiimate 
use scarcely exhibits a trace of the primal signification." — N. 
Webster. " Words thus in current use, sometimes escape 
altogether from their original meaning." — Fairbairn^s Manual 
Hermeneutics, 94- Fowler says : 

" The number of radical words in a language is comparatively few, and 
are chiefly applied to physical objects. As men found the stock of their 
ideas increasing, instead of inventing new terms to describe them, they 
applied old words with an extended or changed meaning; or, what is 
the same thmg, used them figuratively. In this way the great body of 
words in a language, in one stage of their history or another, has been 
used tropically. The word imagination^ derived from image, a term applied 
to its sensible object, was, on its first application to a mental faculty or 
operation, tropical. But it ceased to be tropical when it had been used 
so long that its secondary meaning became indissolubly fixed as the 
PKiNCiPAL owe, or, indeed, to most minds, as its only one. imagina- 
tion CAN not be considered AS A FIGURATIVE TERM. It has lost its 

tropical meaning, at least to the mass of readers, if not to the scholar. 
What is true of imagination is true of a vast number of words." — Fowler's 
" History and Grammar,'^ Eng. Lan , § 612^ p. 599. 

Such are the indisputable facts on language, to which all 
critics assent without exception. As to the present case, it is 
indifferent to me which Dr. Graves prefers. If he clings to 
primaries, then they are not baptized and we are. If he adopts 
the current usage — usus loquendi — which is the true course, we 
are sustained by all lexicons, all the facts and by the authori- 
ties of all ages, and best of all, by the whole Bible. 

If Christ had taught that baptidzo was equivalent to immerse, 
there was not a Greek but would have understood the Com- 
mission to mean that they were to be drowned, and hence 
would have held him to be insane indeed. Dr. Graves cannot 



144 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

find a place in ancient classic Greek where a living animal 
was said to be immersed — put clear under — by baptidzo but 
that it perished. To baptize a living animal in a liquid where 
ho.ptidzo put it under, was to take its life. 

As to baptidzo meaning to sprinkle, not only do I have the 
great array of lexicons I gave you, but Pocock, Alford, Light- 
foot, Beza, Witsius, Terretinus, A. Clarke, Olshausen, Baum- 
garten, Fair bairn, Stier, and hosts of others, the mightiest 
intellects of all ages, and profound scholars — Yossius,Koenoel, 
M. Stuart, Leigh, etc., all sustain me. I could go on to pile 
up authorities upon authorities, until you would weary of it. 

Wh}" is not Dr. Graves consistent? He piles up commen- 
tators to prove that baptidzo is to immerse. He says it means 
to immerse. He turns right around and piles them up to 
prove that it does not mean to sink, but to bury. He claims a 
literal, primary meaning, then jumps off and fights desperately 
for a remote, metaphorical meaning. ]N"ow, sir, you know that 
bury is a metaphorical meaning, if a meaning at all, of bap- 
tidzo. ^o lexicon gives it as a literal or proper meaning. I^ot 
a ^\wg\Q jirsi-class lexicon gives bury as any meaning of baptidzo. 
It is not a meaning at all. 1:^0 place can be found on earth 
where a Greek ever applied baptidzo to a burial — not one. 
Then it is not a meaning. Yet he clings to this whim as 
death to its victim. 

That Paul does not mean by one baptism water baptism, is 
evident, for, 

1st. Heb. vi, 2, speaking of baptism as used in his day — 
Christian baptism-r-says " doctrine of baptism s^^ — plural form 
of baptisma. Hence there were baptisms. 

2d. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Peter and Christ and 
Paul bear witness to baptism with water, and baptism with 
fire as it occurred on Pentecost. Hence Paul, Eph. iv, 4," one 
baptism " did not mean to contradict that. 

3d. He emphatically shows "by one Spirit {en) with one 
Spirit — we are all baptized into one body whether we be Jews 
or Gentiles, bond or free." Here all Christians had been bap- 
tized by the Spirit. 

4th. It means the same, therefore, as Rom. ii, 28-29, '' [N'either 



Mode of Baptism. 145 

is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, but he is a 
Jew who is one inwardly, and circumcision is that of the heart, 
in the Spirit," or by the Spirit. Here Paul declares there is 
but one circumcision — that of the heart. Yet often he calls 
the outward, circumcision. These facts show our view of 
Romans vi, 3-4, to be the only correct view. We now come 

to the VERSIONS. 

Ancient Translations — Syriac. 

Both parties naturally agree that the ancient versions are 
infinitely more valuable in settling this question than any 
other sources of light we can have. The oldest versions were 
made — the Syriac — in the apostolic age, the Itala ( Latin ) in 
the second centur}^ by the converts of the apostles. Surely 
they knew the force of the words used for baptism — used to 
translate their idea of baptidzo into Syriac, Latin, etc. But 
these versions are not like lexicons, the expression of one 
mind, but of the whole church. The Syriac was the expression 
of the knowledge and scholarship of the whole Syriac church. 
The chief of the apostles, and several other apostles, as Thad- 
deus, labored most successfully in Syria. Christ and his 
apostles habitually spoke and discoursed in Syriac — called also 
Aramaean. Li a word, all the most learned in Syriac and Ori- 
ental languages, agree in the following facts : 

1. This version is in the language Christ preached. 

2. It is the oldest, purest, most literal and valuable version 
of the whole Bible, known in the world. 

I read you from Dr. Judd, quoted by permission by Dr. 
Graves, in the appendix to his M. Stuart, copies of which they 
have for sale. On its value, Judd, endorsed by Dr. Graves, 
says, p. 245 : 

" The old Syriac, or Peshito, is acknowledged to be the most ancient, as 
well as one of the most accurate versions of the New Testament extant. 
It was made at least as early as the beginning of the second century — [ John 
Uved into the second century ], in the very country where the apostles lived 
and wrote, and where both the Syriac and the Greek were constantly used 
and perfectly understood. Of course it was executed by those who under- 
stood and SPOKE [ notice that ] both languages precisely as the sacred 
writers themselves understood and spoke them. * * ""■• All the Christian 
sects in Syria and the East make use of this version exclusively.^^ 
10 



146 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

IS'ow hear how Judd, this eminent Baptist talks : 

' All the authorities agree in assigning to this word \_amad'] the primary 
and leading signification of immersion.' ' — p. 246. 

!N'ow whom does Judd^r^^ quote to prove this as the most 
eminent lexicographer ? Castell comes first, Michaelis next, 
pp. 248-9. He quotes the very work that lies before us — not 
the abridged work of Michaelis, but the one only great edition 
of 1669 — the Hejptaglott. A few points else, ere we quote 
him. 

There are three words in ancient Syriac literature by which 
baptidzo is rendered — amad, secho, and tzeva.^ Amad is the one 
most used. Secho is the translation of tabhal — baptidzo in the 
Ixx, 2Kings v, 14, Tzeva is used for baptidzo in the earliest Syriac 
writings, and Chaldee we have. But amad is the most im- 
portant, as being the rendering in the l^ew Testament Peshito. 
We have the satisfaction of finding places, never yet found by 
the writers, where amad was the translation of the word louo 
wash, proper. It cost us much research of course. In one of 
the Syriac versionsf of Susana, i, 15 and 27, the Greek louo to 
wash, pour, sprinkle, is rendered amad in both places. It is a 
clear case of aff'usion also. 

To see the injustice done here on so important a matter, let 
us quote Mr. A. Campbell's Christian Baptism, 135-6. " Cas- 
tell and his editor, Michaelis, Buxtorf, and Schaaf, are all 
unanimous. The first gives the following meanings : '^Abhitus 
est, baptizatus est. Aphel, immersit, baptizavit'^ He then copies 
Buxtorff, Schaaf, and Gutbier, and does not translate the Latin 
— not a word of it, and adds — 136 : " These three [Castell, B. 
and S.] great authorities give to amad the very same meanings 
which our twelve Greeklexicons give to baptidzo and its family — 
to immerse, dip, or plunge, and figuratively, to wash or cleanse." 
Let now the reader glance up at his own Latin, and see what 
a terrible and most unhallowed assertion this is. Is it not 
astounding that man can be so carried away with partisan 
prejudice ? We quote not from Michaelis's edition, because 
he leaves off a word, but we quote it directly from the great 

^ Amad^oemad, secho, secha, sechae, tzebka, tyeva, 
t Walton's Polyglott. 



Mode of Baptism. 147 

folio work of Castell himself, which lies before us. This lex- 
icon is based on two great lexicons made by native Syrians, 
while the Syriac was yet a living language, in the ninth and tenth 
centuries respectively, existing yet only in manuscript form. 

1. " J.mad, PRiMAKiLY to wash, (literally to be washed) to 
baptize. Aphel, i. e, {derivatively, ) to immerse, Numbers xxxi, 
24. To baptize — (noun form) cleansing, baptism, washing." 

''Arabic, amada — (same word and same root) to baptize, to 
make wet with rain."* JJw^qv amak — " The Arabians also lisp 
in pronouncing amak — amath, atnad, amat, to be immersed, 
bedew, sprinkle with water [or rain] (the earth, herbs, etc.,) 
sprinkle with water [rain or dew]. A horse wet with water, 
also sprinkled. Morning dew, also wetting the earth, field, be- 
dewed — sprinkled with dew, (or rain,) wetting ( bedewing," 
etc., page 2800.t 

Oberleitner gives wash, cleanse, derivatively (aphel) im- 
merse. ]^ot a single Syriac or Arabic lexicon gives immerse 
as a first, or general, or common or primitive meaning of 
amad. 

Catajago — '-^ amad, the being wet with rain." That is the 
whole definition of this lexicographer — a late work. He lived 
some sixteen years in the very country where the version was 
made where the apostles preached formerly. He learned to 
speak Arabic as we do English, and gives us the exact force of 
the term. But we call your candid attention to Gotch, Judd,and 
these immersion writers. They put amad immerse every time. 
Judd asserts that " all the authorities agree in assigning to this 
word \_amad^ the primarg and leading signification of immersion.'' 
What are the facts now? Here lies the very book, the verj^ 
edition he quotes — and there never was but one edition of the 

*'Prim. ablutus est, baptizatus est. 

Aphel, (the derivative meaning) immersit, Num. xxxi, 24. Baptizavit, 
ablutio, baptizatio, baptizatus, lavacrum. 

Arab. Amada vi, baptizavit. A. madore pluviae aflecta fuit. Amak, 

Syr. Arab. Sam. (violentia impetus.) 

tArabic, et balbulivit in pronunciatione, {i. e., amath, amad, amat,) immer- 
sus fuit, maduit, rore perfusa fuit (terra, terba, etc.,) rore perfusa. Equus 
aqua rigatus, et perfusus. Ros matutinus, et terram irrigans. * * 
( rore perfufus, madenus, etc. — Heptaglotton Ed. Castell, p. 2800. 



148 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Heptagiott — aud it reads — ^'^ jprimarily ^ to wash — ahlutus est, 
baptizatus est, to be baptized, aphel, [ that is — derivative!}^, in a 
derived form ] to immerse ; and E'umbers xxxi, 24 is the 
oniy place where he can find it with such a meaning, and no 
word for baptize occurs in the original Hebrew or Greek. It 
is bj such conduct as this they have made such capital out of 
the lexicons and versions. The Doctor can have the use of mj 
books — take them to his room — examine these matters to the 
bottom, for I want the facts known. Michaelis puts it exactly 
as Castell does — wash, baptize first, and in a derived form im- 
merse. Let us now sum up a few points here. 

1. xTo Lexicon gives immerse as the general or as the 
primary meaning of baptize in Syriac. 

2. All that give it as meaning immerse, put immerse as a 
derivative, secondary meaning. 

3. They could only find one place in the Bible where amad 
meant immerse, and there it was not the translation of baptidzo, 
tabal or any word for baptize. 

4. It means to wash, to sprinkle, bedew, make wet with 
rain, moisten, to sprinkle — over and again so defined. The 
Arabic and Syriac are exactly the same words with same 
roots.* 

5. Amad is translated from louo in Greek — to wash, pour, 
sprinkle, but is never the translation of the Hebrew or Greek 
words for immerse — such as tabha in Heb., buthidzo, endunai, 
pontidzOy kataduo, katapontidzo, or dupto, dip. 

6. The Peshito has John V, 2, 4, 7; ix, 7: "Go wash at 
(or in) the baptistery. f Here it is clearly expressive of nipto 
as that was the word used in Greek, and A. Campbell renders 
it "wash, by pouring a little water." 

7. It renders bapto sprinkle Rev. xix; 13 {Zelach.)X 

*Schaaf. Oberleitner. Catafago: "The being wet with rain." Arabic 
Lex. amad. The old silly ideas that amad m.eant to stand we deemi as 
unworthy of notice. No Lexicon, nor quotation sustains it. A. Camp- 
bell justly ridicules it. No Arabic Lexicon gives stand as a meaning 
either. 

tDhuJctho chedho dh^ mamudhitho. 

JZelach — sprinkle — asp er sit, consperaii. 



Mode of Baptism. 149 

The next Syriac word is seeJio^ wash. As all define it alike, 
we need not multiply lexicons. 

SCHINDLEB.— " 'S'ecAo — Syriac aDd Chaldee — to wash, be washed, 
cleansed ; because a swimmer cannot swim without washing ; [ from the 
idea of swim, then to wash.] — John xiii, 10 ; 1 Cor. vi, 11 ; Gen. xliii, 31. 

Targum.—" And washed his face " — secho^ * * moistened, (besprinkle) 
wash. — Ps. vi, 6 ; Acts ix, 37. * 

An examination of the above texts, will show it was all by 

application of the water to the person — washing the face, as 

Joseph; washing a dead body as of Dorcas; wetting a couch 

with tears, as David; Christ washing the disciples' feet. 

The primary meaning is decisive. The root sacha^ sack, 
Hottenger gives ' to pour out.' f 

The Arabic has it "vehement rain, flow of water." "• Sacha 
to pour out water, to pour forth, to flow down from above, of 
water, rain, tears; to strike against." — Castell. { Such is the 
meaning in Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic of the root of the 
word baptize, wash, cleanse, which translates hajptidzo^ and 
tabal. Is this immersion ? 

The next word is often rendered hajpto and in the earliest 
Syriac literature it is rendered baptidzo, and baptidzo is ren- 
<ler6d by it viz: tzeva, tzeba or tsebha. It is the same in 
Arabic, Chaldee and Syriac. It never occurs in the Hebrew, 
notwithstanding Gesenius tells us what it means in Hebrew 
with his usual facility of knowing what never exists. As it 
is used many times in the Arabic version for baptidzo in the 
]^ew Testament, we reserve the arguments on it for that place, 
as it means the same in Chaldee, Syriac and Arabic. 

The Arabic claims the next place in Oriental versions, 
because so perfectly allied to the original language of the Bible 
and therefore invaluable to philology. Much more literal, and 

*The root is sacha, sack. Lavit^ lotus, ablutusfuH: quia natator non natat nisi 
iavet. John xiii, 10 ; 1 Cor. vi, 11 ; Gen. xliii, 31. Targum — M lavit faciam 
suam. Syr. Acts ix, 37 ; et laverunt eamy Generally, " navit, natavit, etc. 
Hiphil, natare fecit, humeetamt, lavit Ps. vi, 6; Lev. xliii, 31," etc. 

t Bfudit, p. 501, 

t Effudit aquam, profudit, dejluxit e loco superiore aqua, pluvia, lachryma, per- 
tussit. Heptaglotton, E. Castell, 1669. The word comes to mean inun- 
€ate^ also^ sometim.^« 



150 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

more valuable, as so mucli earlier is the Itahy but is not allied 
in any way to Semetic literature. Hence we are not noticing 
the translations chronologically. The Arabic of the 7th cen- 
tury was made when the Arabic language was in its golden 
age of philology and science. Aristotle, Plato, Homer — all 
the finest Greek literature was familiar to them. They had 
libraries and universities in that and the succeeding century 
that have been the admiration of the world. They had 
scientists that spoke as many as seventy dialects.* 

The Arabic employs three words to render hajptidzo — 1, 
Anmd (amada), 2, gasala, 3, t&avaga (tsahaga^ tsabhaga.) 

1. Amad being the same as Syriac, meaning constantly, to 
sprinkle, wet, as with rain, dew, water, we have noticed. 

8. Gasakff is the word translated from baptidzo and bap- 
timiosy Hebrews vi, 2, Luke xi, 38 ; Mark vii, 4, 8 — used both 
for " Christian " and Jewish baptism in Apostolic times and 
Christ's day. 

Castell thus defines it : to wash, to cleanse, &c. To be 
sprinkled with water, * * wash diligently, wash off the limbs, 
wash ourself, &c. To moisten (or bedew), be sprinkled 
(perfused), to sprinkle.! It is not rendered by immerse, dip 
or plunge by any lexicon 

The next word used to translate baptidzo is travaga, so used 
between thirty-six and thirty-eight times in the IlT. T., and 
often translates tabal in the Targums. It is the word in 
Arabic and Syriac, that like bapto and tabal sometimes means 
to stain, color. 

1. Schindler; tzavaga, to moisten, to dip, to imbue or infect 
with color or moisture {liquids); to color, to wash, to moisten, 

*See Sismondi Hist, Lit. in Eui'ope ; Hallam, Middle Ages, and Hist. 
Literature, vol. 1 Tarabashi^ &c. 

tGasala. 

JGasala (Castell) lavit, abliiit, etc., sudore perfusus fait * * deligenter 
lavit, perluit membra, se abliiit, &c., maduit, perfusus fuit, * * inspergit. It 
occurs for wash, Ps. 73, 13; ISTatt. vi, 17, "wash thy face," Lev. viii, 6, 
washing Aaron and his sons, Ps. 25 ; 6 ; 50 ; 19, &c., and in Arabic literature 
where the head is sprinkled, &c. 



Mode of Baptism. 151 

(sprinkle or bedew;) to wet (or water) to baptize, to immerse.* 

2. Leigh; same as above exactly. 

3. Gesenius on Chaldee — same where it occurs in Bible in 
Pual and Ithpaal forms only — "to wet, moisten, to be wet, 
moistened. "t 

4. Castell — Arabic — " to moisten, imbue, Is. 6, 3, 3, (effected 
bj sprinkling — 1 have sprinkled all my raiment) to immerse, 
to baptize (by immersion) ; to pour out; baptism, &c. "J 

5. Furst, " tzeva, to moisten, to wet, (Pual) to sprinkle, to 
imbue. Ithp. to be wet, moistened. §" In his later German 
Lexicon, translated by Davidson, it is " to moisten, to besprinkle-, 
to baptize. Pual, to water, to moisten." His German shows 
what he meant by " tinxit," as well as " perfundere." Where 
is exclusive imuiersion now? On the root of this word tsav, 
tsavav. 

1. Frey tag's Arabic lexicon has " to pour, pour out." 

2. Kosegarten has : " to pour out, to sprinkle. 

3. Catafago hd^s : '' effusion, pouring out water." 

4. Schindler and Castell, Arabic tsava, to pour. 

In the earliest Syriac literature we have outside the Peshito, 
we read of "the baptism of the flood, of martyrdom," "the 
baptism of tears," of "baptism," either by "immersion, ablu- 
tion, or sprinkling." Of this we will detail under patristic 
literature. 

While the Itala and Vulgate translate tzeva by, once "^ 
moisten,^' twice " to sprinkle,'^ f the same word in the Al Koran 
means baptism, and, while applied to baptism, is also applied 
to the distilling juices of trees, sap flowing from them when 

^Schindler : tinxit, intinxit, colore vel hiuniore imbuit seu infecit, color- 
avit, lavit, madeflcit, rigavit, baptizavit. 

tOesenius tells us it is dip in Heb. and Chaldee, — Kal, form, but as it 
nowhere occurs in Heb. and nowhere in ancient Chaldee save in Pual and 
lih. where he renders it '* wet, moisten " — his assertion is worth nothing 
unless it was backed by some reason or fact. 

l Tinxit, imbuit. Is. 63, 3, immersit, baptizavit, (per immersionem) 
effiidit, baptismus. 

§ Furst, tingere, rigare, Pa. perfundere, imbruere, Ithp., tinxit, tinctum 
esse, Dan, iv; 12, 20, 22, 30: v, 31. Concordentiae et Lex, J. Furstio. 

tTingOj consp(rgo, infundo 



152 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

broken, to the drops falling. Surely this is affusion, not 
immersion. See Lou. Debate 503. X 

While Gesenius is careful to tell us it means dip, immerse, 
in Hebrew, when the word never occurs a single time in all the 
Hebrew language, and to dye, in the Targums, is it a merit 
after this blunder, to fail to tell us it is one of the leading 
Avords for wash in the Targums? It not only translates tabal 
h\it frequently translsites, rachats ^' to WRsh," "pour." It is the 
word in the Targum in Leviticus viii, 6, where Aaron and his 
sons are washed " with water " — rachats in Hebrew, while in 
the Syriac and Targum of Onkelos, it is secho-wash. In iS'um. 
xix, 10, 19, wash, is tzeva in the same, as well as verses 7, 8. 

In the Peshito Syriac then we have 

1 Bapto, the root word of baptize, traaslated in the 'New 
Testament sprinkle, Eev. xix, 13, was rendered in 2nd century. 

2. Tabal, equivalent to haptidzo, translated sprinkle. 

3. Zo!/o (wash, pour, sprinkle) translated baptize, {arnad) 

{Apocrypha). 

4. Baptidzo, rendered amad, wash, sprinkle. 

5. Amad never means immerse, save in a derivative sense, 
(Aphel) and does not thus translate baptidzo in the Bible 

6. Tabal is translated wash where the primary meaning is 
pour, moisten, (by affusion) rain. 

7. Nipto, applied to very partial washings, to rain once, is 
translated wash at the baptistery, i. e. it was baptizing. 

8. It renders Psalm vi, 6, (7 in Heb.) "I have baptized 
{tzeva) my couch with my tears J^ What was the mode? 

9. Ezekiel xxii, 24 : " Thou art the land that is not [tzeva) 
baptized C-Eng. purified) no; upon thee the rain has not fallen {metro 
necheth.) Do you know the ynode heref 

10. Luke vii, 38, 44. Remember that most likely we have 
here word for word the very words in the language Jesus used — 
for it is his Vernacular, as the English is yours. It occurs 

iDr Lindsay quoted in Millen Har, (see Lou. Debate 503) says the same 
word occurs in Alkoran, chap. 33: 20-21, in the sense of syrup, juice or 
Bap. *'A tree produces * * and juice (sabghagh) baptism." 



Mode of Baptism. 153 

txmce in the same sense. " Simon, into tlij iiouse I come — 
water upon my feet you gave me not [so runs the Syriac] bat 
she [the woman] with her teaus my feet hath baptized I "We 
know the mode. We need no Lexicon. I would not give one 
such witness as this, being in the very age of the Apostles — in 
the very language that Christ and his Apostles preached in — 
made in such a language by such men — universally received as 
true to the Greek when all that membership knew what Apos- 
tolic preaching and practice were. I would not give one such 
authority for a thousand lexicons, written fifteen hundred years 
after the death of the Apostles, and after the dark ages with their 
superstitions had rolled between. These facts crush out utterly 
all the little conceits and criticisms about scatter in drops — if it 
is sprinkle, it takes effect on the person and scatters him in 
drops ! ! "It takes efiect upon the water only, scatters it in 
drops, but terminates not on the person.^^ As hrecho means to 
wet, moisten, sprinkle, sl;ed forth, applied to rain, tears, dew, 
etc., and is translated baptize in the apostolic age, and takes a 
direct accusative of the person, so baptize in the Syriac — it puts 
to confusion all these little issues raised by Mr. Campbell and 
others. It shows the lexicons are correct in their renderings. 
It shows that we are sustained in our philology — in our rules 
or canons of interpretation, and better still, it shows that in 
(Mr mode we have Jesus Christ, the Apostles, and all the early 
church with us. — [ Time ouf] 



154 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' EIGHTH SPEECH. 



Replication. 

Mr, President : — I will carefully remove the brush he has 
thrown in to obstruct the progress of those who are inquirin ^ 
after truth, and I will begin where he closed. I follow him 
back until I have cleared the entire road. 

1. As to whether the allusion is to baptism in Rom. vi, 3-4 
that is a settled question by the standard criticism of the pedo- 
baptist world. Concerning no passage in God's word involving 
denominational views, is there a more general accord, as the 
reader can see by referring to my fourth speech on John's 
baptism. I can afford to have my friend fight out his asser- 
tions with Wesley, Adam Clark, Samuel Clark and R. Wat- 
son. The fact is, all he has said but makes it the more evi- 
dent that no mortal man can make any sense out of the first 
seven verses in 6th of Romans, unless it is understood that 
water baptism is referred to. If my friend can exorcise the 
water out of those passages he can express the last drop out 
of Christian baptism as easily. And he has, when he declares 
the baptism by the Spirit is still in vogue, for if so, there is no 
water baptism left. 

2. But his assertion that baptidzo means primarily and pro- 
perly to sprinkle, and that Alford, Lightfoot, Beza, Witsius, 
Terrentine, Adam Clark, Olshausen, Baumgarten, and Stier, 
support him in this position, perfectly astounds me! I have 
quoted nearly every one of these authors asserting the very 
contrary. The Elder has certainly become desperate and reck- 
less of his own reputation. Whether he has not made a 
mistake with reference to the facts in these cases, and the re- 
liance that can be placed upon his last assertions when his 
cause is in peril, I will leave you to decide when I have sub- 

iiiitled what these authors do say. Does Alford, the learned 



Mode of Baptism. 155 

the most critical of all modern expositors, agree with Elder D. 
that haptidzo means to sprinkle, and is so used throughout the 
I:^ew Testament? 

Hear Alford : 

Dean Al.ford. — " The baptism was administered by the immersion of 
the whole person. " — Gr. Tes. Matt. ill. 6. 

"The symbohc nature of baptism is here to be borne in mind: * * 
the burial of the old man, and the resurrection of the new man." — Gr. 
Tes., on Luke xii. 50. 

Dean Alpord. — "The allegory is obviously not to be pressed minutely; 
for neither did they enter the cloud, nor were they wetted by the water of 
the sea." " They passed under both, as the baptized passes under water." 
" They entered by the act of such iminersion into a solemn covenant with 
God, and became His church under the law as given by Moses, God's ser- 
vant, just as we Christians do by our baptism. " &c. — Gr. Tes., on 1 Cor. 
X. 2. 

Does Lightfoot sustain him ? Of John's baptism he says : 

Dr. Lightfoot. — " That the baptism of John was by plunging the body 
(after the same manner as the washing unclean persons and the baptism 
of proselytes was), seems to appear from those things which are related 
of him ; namely, that he baptized in Jordon^ that he baptized in ^non, be- 
cause there was much water there ; and that Christ being baptized, caine up out 
of the water ; to which that seems to be parallel, Acts viii. 38, Philip and the 
eunuch went down into the water , &c. 

If John's baptism was by immersion, then was Christ im- 
mersed and his apostles, and the thousands of diciples they 
baptized before pentecost, and this beyond a reasonable doubt • 
must have been the act Christ commanded. 

Does Beza and Witsius sustain him ? I refer to their testi- 
monies which I produced in my last speech. 
Does Turretine sustain Elder D ? He says : 

TuRRETiNE. — '-The word baptism is of Greek origin, and is derived 
from the verb bapto, which signifies to dip, and to dye; baptizein^ to baptize, 
to dip into, to immerse." — Ins., loc. xix., quaes. xi.,s 4. 

Does A. Clarke sustain his position ? He says : 

Dr. a. Clarke.— " They receive baptism as an emblem of death, in vol- 
untarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of resur- 
rection unto eternal fife, in coming up out of the water "(Com., on 1 Cor. 
XV. 29). "It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of ad- 
ministering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the 
water." — ib.^ on Rom. vi. 4. 

" Baptisms, or immersions of the body in water, sprinkhngs, and wash- 
ings, were frequent as religious rites am^ng the Hebrews, and were aU 



1^6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

emblematical of that pmity which a holy God requires in his worship- 
pers." — Com., on Heb. vi. 2.) 

Here Clarke distinguishes between baptisms and sprink- 
lings — and admits that baptisms were immersions, and thus 
this great commentator of his own church is flatly against him, 
and Bishop McTiere declares in his Aianual that Clarke is a 
true exponent of Methodist faith. 

Does Olshausen support Elder D.'s assertion that haptidzo 
means to sprinkle, and that Rom. vi. 3. 4. does not refer to 
water baptism? He says: 

OiiSHAUSEN. — "John's baptism was in all probabihty like Christian bap- 
tism^, not only in this, that in it the baptizing partly performed the im- 
mersion on the baptized," &c. " The one-half of the action — the submer- 
sion — represents the negative aspect, viz., the taking away of the old man 
(Eom vi. 4); in the other part — the emersion — the positive aspect, . . . 
is denoted." — Com., on Matt. iii. 1, 16, 17. 

"The figm-ative expression 6a^z!ts7/< a refers to baptism by fire, and in- 
volves at once the idea of a painful going down (a dying in that which is 
old), and also of a joyful coming up (a resurrection in that which is new), 
as Rom. vi. 3 shows." — Com., on Matt. xx. 2:1. 

"John also was baptizing in the neighborhood, because the water 
there . . . afibrded conveience for immersion." — Com.^ on John iii. 22-36, 

Do you call this an agreement? 

Does Baumgarten agree with Elder D.? He says; 

Baumgarten. — "As in baptism, since man is not only dipped into the 
water, but also comes up again, the fellowship so signified is not merely a 
fehowship of humihation, but also of exaltation ; not alone a communion 
of death and the grave, but a communion likewise of resurrection and as- 
cension." — On Acts ix. 1-36. 

Does Stier sustain my opponent that 6ap^i(i2:o means to sjprinkle 
in the ]^ew Testament ? He says : 

Dr. Stier. — "The cup points to something that is to be inwardly tasted 
or experienced; while the baptism denotes the same thing as also over- 
powering us from without. ... As the cup points back more to the asign- 
ing will of the Father, so there hes in the baptism a hint pointmg forward 
to the not remaining under the water, the coming forth, and rising again," 
<fec. — On Matt. xx. 22. 

"Concernmg the baptizing of the Holy Ghost, Theophylact rightly said, 
' It signifies the outpouring and abundance of the bestowment. ' ' ' "They 
should now be immersed into the full flood of the Spirit of God." — Words 
&c., vol. viii., pp. 419-420. 



Mode of Baptism. 157 

Does Kuinoel say to be baptized is to be sprinkled? He 
says : 

^^ To be suhnerged with the evils . . . with which I shall be submerged. Afflie- 
tions and calamities in the Holy Scriptures are often compared to deep 
waters, in which they are submerged, as it were, who are pressed by a 
weight of calamities. Hence, to be baptized is to be oppressed with ills^ 
or to be immersed with ills. " — Con^., on Matt. xx. 22. 

Does Leigh, his favorite lexicographer agree with my oppo- 
nent when he expressly says: 

^^Baptidzo * * The native and jorojoer signification of it is to dip into 
water, or to plunge under water. " 

It is not an improper or unusual signification of baptidzo, 
that should be sought after. Blackstone says that words must 
be understood in their usual and most known signification. J. 
Ernesti says, with whom Stuart agrees, that the 'literal, which 
is the grammatical and most obvious sense is the only true one. 

But as a climax, he mentions Moses Stuart as declaring 
with him that baptidzo means to sprinkle! 

"1. Bap to and baptidzo mean to dip ^ plunge^ oy immerge into any thing 
liquid. All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed in this." — 

Again, 

"But enough. 'It is,' says Augusti (Denkw. vii, p. 216), *a thing 
made out,' viz.^ the ancient practice of immersion. So, indeed, all the 
writers who have thoroughly investigated this subject conclude. I know 
of no one usage of ancient times which seems to be more clearly made 
out. I cannot see how it is possible for any candid man who examines 
the subject to deny this. * * ***«-* 

" Christian Baptism,^ ^ by M. Stuart, p. 51. 

I leave the audience to render the verdict. 

He again asserts with increased vehemence his oft dis- 
proved assertion that there is no example in classic Greek 
where a living animal, man or beast was said to be immersed, 
put clear under by baptidzo hut that it perished ! Every scholar 
knows thai I have produced six unmistakable cases, and one 
would be sufficient. 

He has so often made this assertion, that I will nail it to the 
counter just here and dismiss it. 

1. My first case was that of Aristobulus, whom his associates 



158 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

were bribed to put to death as if in sport in a swimming batli. 

The text reads : — Continually or frequently pressing him 
down, and immersing, (baptizing), him they finally suffocated 
him. 

If one baptism would have destroyed him, why was the im- 
mersion repeated? 

2. My second case was that of the soldiers on the sea of 
Galilee, being submerged — (baptized) along with their vessels; 
those that rose to the surface were dispatched, &c. "Why dis- 
patch them, if baptidzo put them to the bottom to remain ? 

3. My third case was the 30 Ex. of Conant, where the 
author of a work on Epidemics describes a diseased person, 
"as breathing as persons do after having been — bebaptisthai — 
immersed." How could any one tell how a person breathed 
after having been immersed, if the immersion invariably des- 
troyed him ? 

4. My fourth example was the 59th of Conant, where the 
cavalry forces of Xcenatas hscptized—baptidzomenoi—Sind sinking 
in the pools were all made useless and many perished. If 
baptidzo effectually destroyed, why did any survive ? 

5. My fifth example was the 64th of Conant, where the 
charm to cure frightful dreams is given. 

" Call the old enchantress and — baptison — immersing thy 
self, eis thalassen, in the sea, spend a day sitting on the ground." 
If the immersion would have destroyed him, how could he 
fulfill the second part of the direction — sit a whole day on 
the ground? 

6. My sixth case was Conant's 66th Ex. : When, to free 
Agamemnon from his inordinate desire, he baptison, immersiug 
himself in lake Copais. I have thrice or more times asked my 
opponent if the King did not go from that immersion, to the 
seige of Troy. These six are as good as sixty. His assertion 
is utterly false. I grant that baptidzo is often used of ships 
sinking to rise no more — and of animals when they were 
drowned, but the great Schleusner says that in the sense of to 
drown, it is never used in the New Testament, and Yossius 
agrees with him in this. This is my final notice of his assertion. 



Mode of Baptism. 159 

The first fact he mentions is new to no one, and does his 
position no good; i.e. "that words sometimes change their mean- 
ings and escape altogether from them." 

My opponent has again tied for refuge into the Syriac and 
the versions, where, if he sees fit, he can remain until I reach 
the versions some days hence in the due course of my argu- 
ment. 

Argument. 

I will resume where I closed yesterday on the Commission, 
My plan and purpose has been to make a symmetrical argument. 
I will, therefore, proceed in the course I have marked out 
for myself. My opponent has again fled before me one or two 
days, and taken cover under versions, but I shall not on that 
account deviate far from the course I have prescribed for 
myself. I will again read the commission as recorded by 
Matthew : 

"Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe 
all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and lo, I am with you 
alway, even unto the end of the world." 

Mark records it in nearly the same language: 

" Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
that beUeveth and is baptized shall be saved ; he that believeth not shall 
be damned." 

This is the law; and the only law for Christian baptism. It 

is couched in unambiguous terms. Now, we cannot suppose 

that Christ, after fulfilling all righteousness, "by submitting 

to the rite which his harbinger administered, intended to 

supersede this by instituting another of a different character. 

He does not intimate any change ; he uses the same word, 

designating the same act John performed in Jordan. The 

only change is in extending the commission to " all the world " 

— to all nations and tribes instead of restricting it " to the lost 

sheep of the House of Israel." Now, let me read to you the 

canon of Blackstone with regard to the interpretation of law : 

''To interpret a law, we must inquire after the will of the maker ^ which 
may be collected either from the words, the context, the subject matt'er, 
the effects and consequences, or spirit and reason of the law. (1) Words 



i6o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

are generally to be understood in their usual and most knowing signifioa- 
tion ; not so much regarding the propriety of grammar as their general 
and popular use. * *" (2) If words happen still to be dubious, we may 
establish their meaning from the context, etc.; of the same nature and a.>e 
is the comparison of law ivifh laws that are made by the same legislator, 

that have the same djinity with the suhject^ or that EXPRESSLY RELATE TO 

THE SAME POINT." — Blackstonc's Com., Vol., I, pp. 59-61. 

You see at once its application to the point we have under 
consideration. It is the sariie lawgiver who makes this law, 
who made the first law establishing Christian baptism. It 
was at first given to be the initiatory rite for admission 
among his people and into his visible kingdom. This law is 
for the self-same purpose, and embraces the self-same persons. 
Do they not both expressly relate to the same subject and to 
the same point? If Christ had intended to change the nature 
of the act, or the subjects of it, here is just the place where 
he would have made the alteration. He is but re-enactino^ 
the same law, so he deems it unnecessary to make a reference 
to the element. The apostles knew that Christ had been baptized 
in water, and that they themselves had been baptized in water. 
They knew that for three years they had been baptizing in 
water; and they must have known that the command which 
Christ gave them in his last commission, was a command to 
administer the same rite which he and they had received. 

Yattel, in his Law of N'ations, p. 65, § 26, note, lays it down 
as a fixed principle in international law that, " When a custom 
or usage is generally established * >?= * it becomes obligatory 
on all the nations in question, who are considered as having 
given their consent to it and are bound to observe it toward 
each other as long as they have not expressly declared their reso- 
lution of not observing it in future." In note 10 * * There 
must be a reasonable notification of any change, or the parties 
are still bound by the customary law. "This is a natural law that 
enters into the very nature of things. A previous law is in 
force until there is an express change of it, and due notifi- 
cation of the fact given." The rite of Christian baptism, 
established by express law of the only lawgiver in Zion to his 
first commissioned officer, John the Baptist, to immerse in 
water all subjects professing repentence toward God, and 



Mode of Baptism. ' i6i 

faith in Christ, was a law in force in his kingdom until by 
him. repealed, and expressly repealed. But this commission 
is in no sense a repeal of the law of baptism, but it re-enacts 
it with but one amendment, and perpetuates it in his church 
forever; that one change was to extend it from Judea to the 
ends of the earth. 

Yesterday I was delighted to hear my friend extol to the 
very skies, the preeminent authority of Dean Alford as a 
biblical critic. Well, I have a special use for his witness upon 
this point. 

"As regards the command itself, no unprejudiced reader can doubt that 
it regards the outward riie of baptism, so well known in this gospel as 
having been practiced by John, and received by the Lord himself. And 
thus it was immediately, and has been ever since, understood by the 
Church. As regards all attempts to explain away this sense, we may say 
— even setting aside the testimony furnished by the Acts of the Apostles 
— that it is in the highest degree improbable that our Lord should have 
given, at a time when He was summing up the duties of his Chm-ch in 
such weighty words, a command couched in figurative or ambiguous 
language — one which He must have known would be interpreted by his 
disciples, now long accustomed to the rite and its name, otherwise than He 
intended it." Cjm N T. in loco. 

I^ow, I have proved by no less than eight irrefragable argu- 
ments — arguments which he has scarcely essayed to over- 
throw — arguments which his silence has admitted to be 
unanswerable, and I have corroborated these by the testimony of 
the most eminent commentators and critics that ever lived, that 
Jesus Christ, without doubt, received immersion at the hands 
of John in the water of the Jordan or Enon, and that his 
apostles received the same rite they had administered under 
the eye of Christ for three and one-half years, audit was this 
self-same rite that the Christ re-enacts in his commission 
of the harbinger. ]^ow, conjectures and suppositions however 
plausible, and assertions, however boldly and frequently 
repeated, amount not to the weight of a feather in counter- 
poise with this one conclusive consideration. 

In reading this commission, I notice this feature of the law. 

Christ commanded the j^eojyle to be baptized, and not the 

water, i. e., the participle baptizontes^ which has all the force of 

the imperative here, takes autous them — and not hudor — water 

11 



i62 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

for its direct object. I am impressed with this fact, that what- 
ever the verb baptidzo expresses, it took direct effect upon the 
persons baptized and not the water. It is the meaning of the 
word baptidzo that we are inquiring after, and it is its usus 
loquendi in the IN'ew Testament that I propose to determine. 

It is claimed by my opponent, and some few others, that 
baptidzo means, properly and primarily, to sprinkle, and to 
pour and, if he ever admits that it may anywhere in the Kew 
Testament mean immerse, or dip in, when referring to the 
Christian rite, I have not yet heard it from his hps only 
that it does not mean to dip. 

There is a rule that requires disputants to define clearly the 

terms they use, and I propose to define, before going farther, 
the true signification of these terms. Webster will be en- 
dorsed as good authority : 

To immerse, says Webster, primarily^ '• To put under a fluid, to plunge^ to 
dip. ' Figuratively, 

" To overwhelm, to engage deeply, as to be imniersed in business, in cares 
or sufferings. 

The subject or object of this act is without division of parts placed 
under, or dipped into, or overwhelmed by the element, which must be 
easily divisible in its nature, as fluids or sand," etc. 

To pour, 1, To throw, as a fluid, in a stream, either out of a 
vessel or into it, as to pour water from a pail or out of it. 

Pour is appropriately, but not exclusively, applied to fluids, 
and signifies merely to cast or throw in, in this sense modified 
by, out, from, in, into, on, upon, etc. 

It is applied, not only to liquors, but to all other fluids, and 
to substances consistiny of fine particles. 

Literally, all can see that a solid indivisible body, as man 
cannot be the direct object of the verb to pour, but only in a 
figurative or poetic sense, with which we have nothing to do. 
Roy, in his Hebrew lexicon defines it by '^ difj^usey 

To Sprinkle, Webster says, 1. "To scatter; to disperse; as 
a liquid or a dry substance composed of fine separable parti- 
cles as Moses sprinkled handful's of ashes toward heaven." 

Secondary meaning, zz;zY/i a preposition expressed or understood, 
when it is in fact a compound ivord, " To scatter on," " to besprin- 
kle." 



Mode of Baptism. 163 

Whenever sprinkle is used in the sense of purify in sacred 
Scripture, the effect is put for the means ^ as Heb. x, 22. 

It will be seen that a solid body whose particles are not sep- 
arable, cannot be sprinkled, but it can only be besprinkled 
with fluid or sand, etc., but, as they are the terms of law 
before us, we can have nothing to do with secondary and figu- 
rative meanings, but with the primary, simple form and sense 
of this verb. 

The verb ''Ho pouf^ is used in sacred Scripture fifty-one times, 
and in no single instance does God command men to be poured. 
It is used only once in the Kew Testament. Rev. xvi, 1, ''pour 
out the vials of wrath, etc." 

To sprinkle is used nineteen times, and in not one single 
instance does God command men to be sprinkled. Neither to 
pour nor to sprinkle are once used in connection with, or 
alluding to baptism. But Christ did command men to be bap- 
tized, and therefore he never commanded them to be poured or 
sprinkled. The command would be in violation of, and repug- 
nant to our natural reason. Men are not divisible ; they can- 
not be sprinkled or poured. 

We certainly are not allowed to look for tropical language 
in the terms of positive law, but terms used in their literal 
and general signification. 

I want every man, woman and child to carry this argument 
home. 

You CANNOT SPRINKLE OR POUR A MAN, BUT ONLY WATER OR 
FLUID OR SAND, OR SOME DIVISIBLE ELEMENT upon HIM. 

But Christ does not use the preposition in the commission, 
and no one has the right to add to his word, or to the words of 
his law, to change it. He does not command to baptize the water 
upon persons, but to baptize the persons themselves. Water is never 
the object of the verb baptidzo, nor is it ever the nominative 
of the verb in its passive form. Believing persons, men and 
women, are commanded to be baptized, and not the water to 
be baptized upon them. Eld. Ditzler cannot parse this com- 
mission, and substitute to sprinkle or to pour for one of the 



164 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

meanings of baptidzo. He may attempt to ridicule it, but he 
should remember the statement of his sprinkling Bro. Geo. 
Campbell, the Presbyterian. 

My next argument is this : 

To CLAIM that the VERB BAPTIDZO HAS DIVERSE AND OPPOSITE 

meanings in this place or in any other passage in the sacred 
Scriptures, is to violate one of the acknowledged rules of 
interpreting language. 

To sprinkle, to pour, to immerse, to pop on, denote diverse 
and opposite acts, and no word can be coined in any language 
to express them. If baptidzo means to sprinkle, it cannot mean 
to immerse. This is self evident, and if it means to immerse, 
the meaning I have shown it invariably has in the writings of 
the^ Evangelists, it cannot mean either to pour or to sprinkle 
or to pop. We must select one and but one of these for its 
true meaning. 

My next argument is from the universal adaptibility of the 
term. 

Whatever baptidzo signifies with respect to the rite of 
baptism, will translate it in every passage in which it 
applies to baptism. 

To test this canon and thereby ascertain the true signification 
of baptidzo in the Kew Testament, I propose to examine every 
passage in the Evangelists, and some others, in which baptidzo 
and its cognates are found, and I do this to determine this 
vexed question in the minds of the common reader, for whose 
benefit I am most especially shaping this discussion. Itivill be 
seen by him that in every case in which baptidzo is used, it_ is inva- 
riably used, inthe sense of to immerse, and never in either that of to 
pour or to sprinkle, to pop, or to stand up, as some claim that the 
Syriac verb denoting baptism means. 

I open the ]^ew Testament at Matt, iii, 6 : 

1. Matt, iii, 5, 6, 7 : ''Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, 
and all the region round about Jordan, and were sprinkled, poured, popped, 
scattered, stood up, (the claimed force of amad in Syriac. Some Pedobap- 
tists claim that it means to stand, so I try each passage with to stand also,) 
immersed of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. 



Mode of Baptism. 165 

Will you decide which of these acts makes seuse, remem- 
bering that you cannot sprinkle or scatter a living being into 
fine particles or drops? 

2. Verse 11 : ''I indeed sprinkle, pour, stand you up, immerse you in 
water, unto repentance, etc." 

3. Verses 13, 14, 15, 16: "Then cometh Jesus from Galilee to Jordan, 
unto John, to be scattered, poured, immersed of him ; but John forbade 
him, saying, I have need to be scattered, poured, immersed of thee, and 
comest thou to me ?" 

"And Jesus when he was scattered, poured out, stood up, immersed, 
went up straightway out of the water." 

4. Matt, xxi, 25, 26, 27: "The sprinkling, pouring, popping, immersion, 
etc., of John, whence was it, from Heaven or of men?" 

5. Mark i, 3: "John did sprinkle, pour, pop, stand up, immerse, in 
the wilderness, etc." 

"And there went out unto him all the land of Judea, and they of Jeru- 
salem, and were all sprinkled, poured, stood up, immersed of him in the 
river of Jordan, etc." 

6. Verse 8, 9, 10 : "I indeed have sprinkled, poured, stood you up, im- 
mersed you {en, in) water. 

7. Mark xi, 30: "The sprinkling, pouring, immersion of John, was it 
from Heaven, or of men ? " 

Should I be censured for believing that every one not blind- 
ed by prejudice, must be convinced that these two Evangelists 
at leastj used haptidzo only in the sense of to immerse ? — [Time 
out 



1 66 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S EIGHTH REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — Blackstone again. I endorse all 
Blackstone says. Usage — current ussage is our guide on the 
meaning of words, but what of j>nmarj/ meaning? Current 
meaning is not primary, and often does not exhibit a single 
trace of the primary at all, as Webster, Fowler, Fairbairn, 
Jahn, Robinson, &c., tell you. 

1. We saw that classic use proved that sprinkle was the 
primary meaning of baptidzo and bapto as well. This he has 
never attempted to meet even by a /em^ of attack. 

2. Only thirty times in all can htptidzo be found in all the 
classic Greek literature of the world up to Christ's coming, 
and the cases can be examined. Certain it is Christ and the 
Apostles knew not of those — never saw them. Most of them 
were written just before he came, in remote countries in 
classic Greek style, in the iron age thereof. 

3. By Blackstone the literature examined to find an author's 
meaning at least must be kindred, not remote, of a different 
Greek, yea and tongue. Of what affinity is classic Greek — 
Polybius, Strabo, &c, with the Bible Greek? Baptidzo in 
Plato is to make drunk, and confuse with questions. In Jo- 
sephus' Greek, learned from classics, it is to sink, where each 
submerged object went to the bottom and remains there yet; 
to burden or overwhelmn with calamities, debts, taxes. So 
Plutarch. In Aristotle it is to "overflow" a permanent, im- 
movable object. In Alcibiades, Aristophanes it is to asperse, 
pour abuse upon. Now where has baptidzo such meanings as 
these in the ordinance use of it in the N. T.? You know it 
has no such meanings. 

But Dean Alford, that great scholar and critic, is called up, 
as if he were on his side. 

Hear what Alford says in his commentary on Mark vii, 4, 
and Acts ii, 41 : " The baptismoi, as applied to klinoi (couches 
at meals) were certainly not immersians^ but sprinklings ot 



Mode of Baptism. 167 

affusions of water." " Almost without doubt, this first baptism 
must have been administered, as that of the first Gentile con- 
verts was (see note ch. x, 57 and note), by affusion and 
sprinkling, not by immersion (italics his). So thought Olshausen, 
Stier and other of the greatest Greek critics of this or any 
century. 

Dr. G. thinks I misrepresent him. He is mistaken. I quoted 
[lis book where, commenting on Heb. ix, 10, he says they 
were the washings, immersions of the law. I read your words 
then. I certainly never dreamed of you saying or meaning 
that all the purifications were meant; for these were often by 
sprinkling blood, and sprinkling of the water with ashes of a 
burnt heifer — often by this method. But I quoted you as re- 
ferring to the washings {rachats — louo — nipto,) that were for 
declaring ceremonial cleansing or purity. It will be more to 
point if he will meet my facts, or show how the people 
immersed themselves in the light of the numerous facts we 
have presented. The amount of water — pure, simple water — 
used for these baptisms, is given the fifth of a pint of water — 
an egg-shell full — hen's egg — served to baptize a man. A 
few particles — " little particles of hail " were sufficient when 
melted, to baptize. Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 190, a 
learned Greek, says the Jews daily baptized themselves epi 
koitae on a couch — the water was poured on their heads. Jose- 
phus, a high priest in Apostolic days, twice uses sprinkle for 
the wash — raehats — Greek louo — of the Mosaic books, where 
Aaron and his sons were washed— to which you all, A. Camp- 
bell, Carson, Gale, &c., assert baptidzo applies in apocryphal 
and New Testament Greek. 

Authority on baptism in fire — this you may produce — a few 
authorities. But the mass, 98 to one are against it. It is 
supremely absurd to make John say that those he baptized 
with water, Christ baptized with the Spirit, should be plunged 
into hell as the effect of a double baptism. Let him show 
where baptidzo applies to being cast into hell. Show a text. 
It can^t be done, and he knows it. 

Amad, Syriac for baptize. He pretends that I adduced 
Luke vii, 44, as a case where amad was used. I told the 



1 68 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

audience plainly that tlie Syrians used, as the Arabs did, 
several words for hapUdzo in their literature. I quoted Judd, 
the zealous Baptist, and Dr. J. R. Graves as my witnesses, as 
well as Neander, 1.376, Giesler, Hegessippus and the Syriae 
itself. Tzeva is rendered baptidzo in 2nd, and subsequent cen- 
turies. A sect of Christians are called Tzebians or Sabean-s 
from that word — baptize dail}^ — " Haemero — Baptists.^' It 
is the word in the Arabic N. T., made in the golden age of 
Arabic learning — in an age when they translated Plato, Aris- 
totle and Homer — in that age of Greek study some 38 times 
in the 'N. T., they render baptidzo and its nouns by this word 
which is used repeatedly for dear oases of sprinkling — admitted 
by Dr. Graves to be very light sprinklings. Hence these facts 
are perfectly crushing. In the Apostolic age baptize in Syriae 
was applied to sprinklings^ never to immersions — never. 

But the thing that most astonished me in the gentleman's 
speech was that my sprinkle was translated from the Latin 
tingo. He asserted that it was all tingo, tingo, tingo I ! I am 
amazed at the gentleman. What does he mean ? Where was 
his hearing? He waits two days — two days have passed since 
I read the Greek Lexicons, and now he thus hopes to break 
the force of the mighty array of crushing facts we adduced. 
Alas ! for such a dodge. In not a single case did I render tingo 
by sprinkle. The words in Latin I quoted from Wahl (3rd ed.j 
Wolfius, Vossius, Suicer, Schleusner, Julianus, &c., &c., were 
adspergo, conspergo, SLS^ermo per/undo, prof undo — -in Greek from 
Euthymius (4th cent.) and Gages were rantidzo, and epiohunoy 
i. e., epi, upon and oheo, to pour, and let him dare deny any of 
these facts or renderings ? Several were English, quoted from 
Booth and Ingham, both Baptist standard writers, giving 
sprinkle, pour in English, and we have them here — cited the 
page. Schneider gives baptidzo as equivalent to Greek brecho 
which is such a sprinkling and pouring forth as rain, tears, 
dew. He knows this. Stokius' words were '^ adspergendo 
aquam" — by sprinkling the water, and ''aqua adfundebatur,'' 
the water was poured copiously upon the baptized. Will be 
deny thsit fundo is the Latin for pour"} Passow is in German 
— is not benetzeny anfeuchten moisten, wet, in German ? Is not 



Mode of Baptism. 169 

biglessen sprinkle, like Latin perfundo and 2ibergiessenhes-pviuk\e^ 
spriiikle upon, uberschutten pour upon? You must improve 
your hearino:. We mean business. 

He understands me to say I would not give one word of 
Syriac for a thousand of Greek! Oh! no; nothing like it at 
all. I said in substance that one such fact as baptize a couch 
with tears, Christ's feet with her tears, the land with rain, was 
worth a thousand such authorities as you paraded, or lexicons 
made fifteen, sixteen and eighteen hundred years afterwards, 
when the dark ages with their dark burden of superstition 
rolled between, wrapped in the black folds of a thousand 
years of ignorance and gloom and blood. JSTor would I give 
one such fact from the Apostolic ages for it all on those 
points. 

On Rom. vi, 4, once more we ask, how can a dip in water 
represent the crucifixion on the cross? It is useless to repeat 
till he answers some of my points. I answer all he seeks to 
make, then offset with irrefragable facts and arguments he 
even dare not notice. 

Again he brings up apo,from. Finding that all the learned 
immersionists of candor now give it up, and that Christ did not 
go up out of, but away ''from the water," — Conant, Anderson, 
Wilson, Bible Union, he falls back and says "apo takes them 
just where en and eis put them." But it was Christ who 
" went up immediately apo, from the water," Matt, iii, 16 ; 
Mark i, 10. E'ow eis is not used anywhere of his baptism or of 
his being eis in or by the Jordan. It is said Matt, iii, 13 : 
" Then came Jesus pros to John epi at the Jordan to be bap- 
tized" — not in the Jordan. It was epi at, not eis at, in or by, 
or into. Apo can only apply where the person was not in the 
Walter, as Winer shows on the Jordan, answering to epi, yet 40 
feet from actual contact with the water — be in Jordan, in 
Scripture language, as Elijah dwelt en by the brook, &c. 

I can assure the Doctor that if his friends feel quarter as 
well over this debate as ours do, he may congratulate himself. 
Here is Bro. Dockery who can hardly hold in his big soul, he 
* feels so good. 

The Doctor abandons "bury" now, and falls back on a word 



1 70 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

in the next verse, Eoin. vi, 5, "Planted together." What does 
that mean? Is plant a word of definite mode, or does it imply 
envelopment^. Surely not. Suppose he takes the seed and dips, 
them into the ground and takes them right out again, as they 
baptize, would that be planting them ? Suppose it is an orchard 
of apple, peach and pear trees he has ^'planted. " Do they 
either dip them into the earth and lift them out, or cover, 
bury them up, all over as they put the subject under water? 
Do you not see that this word helps him not, but destroys 
liim ? Take a few of the passages where plant occurs. "Ps. i, 3, 
Jer. xvii, 8 ; ii, 31, "A tree planted by the rivers of w^ater." 
"As a tree planted by the w^aters." Matt, xxi, 33, "A certain 
householder which planted a vineyard.^' "I plant thee a noble 
vine," Jer. ii, 31. In no case do I find plant in the Bible implying 
complete envelopment or dipping. So here he utterly fails in their 
favorite Scripture. 

But what is "^Ae likeness of his death" in which we are planted? 
Sumphutoi, planted, is from sumphuo, '-'•horn, engraft, p>lanted, 
grow together." By this baptism we "are engrafted, born, grow 
together with Christ." So Paul says. Does loater baptism 
effect that? Is that water baptism? You insist that as by 
the baptism "we are buried into death," the baptism is the 
burial. So as "by the baptism" we are planted, that is, "en- 
grafted, born, [of God], grow together" as one with him, and 
by your position this is water baptism ! 1 Yerily you go beyond 
all " Campbellites" as you call them ; for this is water regener^ 
tion, water engrafting, water growing together with Christ. 
All this to save the sinking cause of immersion. But again 
we have primary up. Webster sustains me, as do all authori- 
ties, that primary is the first, the original meaning of the 
word — not current meaning, unless current use retains the 
original meaning. Webster says "Primary — first in order of 
time or development; original." "Primitive — pertaining to the 
beginning." So Worcester, Richardson — so all critics hold it. 
Hence not a single point I have yet made is shaken, nor 
can be. 

He says the definite, specific naming of a thing is the exclu- ' 
sion of all others. But thai is the very point to prove — where 



Mode of Baptism. 



171 



has the ^ew Testament used a definite^ specific word for what 
you require in baptism. The Greek has words for dip, both 
partial and thorough dips — dupto and embapto, bapto — not once 
are they used for baptism, nor kolumbao. In Greek pontidzo, 
enduno, buthidzo, katapojitidzo, hataduno, all mean definitely to 
immerse. iTot once is one of them applied to baptism in the 
Bible. Conant gives baptidzo 14 definitions, A. Campbell, sup- 
ports W for it, Mell, Gale, Carson, &c an average as great in 
proportion to the citations. It is wash often. Is that specific, 
definite? Far from it. You wash your face, your head, your 
body by application of water, and more or less your hands — 
no specific mode being used. You wash furniture, tables, the 
floor, a child — rains wash our houses, trees, fences, the bushes, 
herbage, all by pouring. "Half-blown roses washed in dew," 
in Milton, are not immersed. Lavo in Latin, louo, pluno, nipto, 
kludzo, brecho in Greek, rachats in Hebrew, all meaning to wash, 
mean to sprinkle or pour, or both also — whenever modal — are 
ALWAYS sprinkle or pour. Baptidzo not only means to wash, but 
in classic use it is intoxicate, make drunk, burden with debts, 
taxes, overflow, overwhelm, asperse, pour abuse upon — these 
are not definite, specific processes, and all one specific thing, 
surely. 

If he falls back on the current, general meaning, he fares as 
badly ; for taking the best showing immersionists could make, 
out of an average of foar hundred and seventy-five cases they 
unitedly make it dip eighteen times. A. Campbell found no 
jylace where he could render it dip ; Ingham, out of one hun- 
dred and sixty-nine cases, found only one where, in his estima- 
tion, it was dip. Hence dip in the house of its friends, is the 
rarest of all meanings. It means drown, far oftener than dip, 
in the estimation of those who say it means dip and nothing 
else! Passow, the greatest of Greek lexicographers says: 
" G^enfm% to sprinkle upon (or besprinkle,) to pour upon." 
Then by this authority, assuming Dr. Graves' idea of primary, 
we still have the position sustained that no Baptist is baptized. 
If only the primitive is the allowable one, and the primitive 
means primary usage, the most general meaning, then we are 
right still, and no Baptist is baptized, save the few who went 
from us. 



172 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

And now let me refer to the way all this is sustained by 
the Hebrew word for baptize — tahhal {taval). I gave Castell, 
Buxtorff's folio lexicon, etc. The first embodies fall three 
hundred years of labor, the other thirty years. Here are 
pains and labor, study, and care. After defining tahhal (bap- 
tize) by moisten, dip, etc., as formerly quoted, they tell us — 
Buxtorff' — that it " is not washed all over, but besprinkled with 
the water." Castell, that even when it is intingo, dip, ^' the 
dipping ( intinctio ) merely touches the subject to the liquid ( water ) 
either in part or in whole — ( contingat tantum * * * rem 
humidam, vel parte vel totam — con with, and tango, to touch.) 
Schindler so distinguished also 1612, says substantially the 
same — " merely touches the moisture (liquid or water) in whole 
or in part; baptize" — attingat, ad to, and ^an^o, touch. Leigh 
has exactly the same. Stokius' Hebrew Clavis, the same — 
" as it touches the liquid in whole or merely in part " {aut saltern 
ex parte.) Here Castell is equivalent to nineteen lexicographers 
— yea, twenty, as Rabbi David Kimchi is used and endorsed 
here. In all then, we have twenty-five of the greatest Hebrew 
lexicographers the world has ever known, supporting u& — 
that if the object "is merely touched to" — merely touches the 
water — the liquid element, or is touched [ah aqua) by the 
water, he is baptized. When he is besprinkled by it, he is 
touched by it. But then, all these great and famed lexico- 
graphers are crazy ^ " crazy as loons," for they sustain Furst 
out and out. 

Schindler was recognized justly in his day as Leigh quotes 
it " the greatest scholar in Christendom.''^ All the great witnesses 
— thirty odd Greek lexicons — all the standards of that lan- 
guage, twenty-jive Hebrew lexicographers, the greatest on 
earth ; a body of Syriac lexicographers, embracing the great- 
est of their native lexicographers — Arabic, Chaldee — all, 
making quite a hundred lexicographers — every one sustaining 
afiusion, and not one sustains the Doctor's position — not one, 
and not one in seven justifies immersion as baptism in the 
IS'ew Testament,and no one at all supports dip as a l^ew Testa- 
ment meaning of all I quoted.Yerily that is a bad- showing for 
a cause as boldly asserted as is theirs. 



Mode of Baptism. 173 

I will now take up his attempt to meet mj argument, in his 
sixth speech. 

The Doctor adduces the quotation from Maimonides to meet 
my argument on the laver. Strange to saj, the first sentence 
he uses is a serious mistake. He says : "In every case of 
purification when tavel [taval] is used, I will say that was by 
the immersion of the whole body." 

1. I^ow taval is never used of purification in the whole Bible 

— i^EVER. 

2. It is not the word for wash in Maimonides. Maimonides 
is thus quoted by Ingham, Baptist, p. 373 : "Wherever in the 
law, washing, &c, is .mentioned, it means nothing else than 
the dipping of the whole body in a laver : for if any man dip 
himself all over, except the tip of his little finger, he is still in 
his uncleanness." "A bed that is wholly defiled, if a man dip it 
part by part, it is pure," ibid. Let us note now, 

1. By this it is granted one may baptize himself without bap- 
tizing "himself all over." 

2. There is no question as to whether one may not baptize 
himself by perfusion, but whether /or certain kinds of unclean- 
ness complete washing was not necessary. 

3. It does not make it necessary to dip to be baptized, but 
if any part is unwashed, he is unclean still. 

4. This shows utter superstition ; for the writing clearly 
shows that mode was not contemplated at all, but that all parts 
must be touched by the water, perfusion suiting as perfectly as 
submergence. This appears where the ''bed is dipped part by 
part." That utterly destroys their own dogma. There is clear- 
ly no mode contemplated as essential. Baptists do not "dip 
part by part" of a man. To dip one end or side of a bed, 
then the other side, is not to immerse it at all in their sense of 
immersion. 

5. This was all in the 12th century, when superstition was 
absolute ; when as Castell, Buxtorff and Schindler show, the 
Jews kept Gentile proselytes standing in the water for hours, 
to soak, as they superstitiously thought, the Gentile nature 
out, while they recited the law, in water "np to the neck." 



174 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

6. Finally, the words used show mode was not contemplated 
in this purification, the whole being 1200 years after Christ, 
and without authority, and a pure superstition ; too late to 
give us any reliable dates at all. The first word used is rachats. 
It never means dip, does mean pour. It interchanges with, or 
is accomplished by shataph^ (pour, wash,) tabal, sprinkle, dip 
where it merely 'Houche^ the liquid," and kabas, to wash, never 
dip or immerse. I will give a literal rendering from the 
original, as few have access to it, and it is not translated that 
I know of. "Wherever in the law washing occurs, either of 
the body, {bashar flesh) or of the garments, from defilement, 
{min), nothing else is to be understood than the washing {tah- 
ilali) of the whole body at a fountain, [or in a concepticle of 
water]. And that which is said, [here extra defilement is 
described], 'and he shall not wash (shataph) his hands with 
water," is to be understood as if he said he must wash {sMta- 
bul, tabal) his whole body with water. And after the same 
order shall other impurities be judged of; sothatif one should 
wash himself all over (tabal kulo) except at the extremity of 
his little finger, he is yet in his uncleanness." This part that 
shows the washing contemplated defilement requiring a more 
thorough washing, the immersionists leave out. 

Thus we see it is rachats Maimonides uses. We see immer- 
sion — mode — had no part in it. And this is the best he can 
do to meet our unanswerable, Bible facts ! — [_Time out. 



Mode of Baptism. 1-3 



DR. GRAVES' NINTH SPEECH. 

Argument. 

Mr. President — I will take up my argument from the adap- 
tability of the term immerse, to meet the requirements of the 
sense in the passages in which baptidzo occurs. Let the reader 
decide which verb makes sense, remembering that solid indi- 
visible subjects like living beings cannot be the direct object 
of the verb to sprinkle and to pour, without requiring the pre- 
positions on, or upon to be expressed or understood. But 
baptidzo in none of these instances is used with a preposition 
signifying on, or upon, and therefore it cannot mean to divide 
and scatter in drops, or diffuse. 

8. Luke iii. 3 And he came into all the country about Jor- 
dan, preaching the sprinkling, pouring, or immersion of re- 
pentance for the remission of sins. 

9. Verses 7, 8. Then said he to the multitude that came 
forth to be sprinkled, poured, popped, immersed, etc., of him, 
etc. 

10. Verse 12. Then came also publicans to be sprinkled, 
poured, immersed. 

11. Verse 16. I indeed sprinkle, pour, pop, immerse you 
in water. 

12. Verse 21. N"ow when all the people were sprinkled, 
poured, immersed, it came to pass that Jesus also, being 
sprinkled, poured, immersed, etc. 

18. Luke vii. 29, 30. And all the people that heard him, 
and the publicans, justified God, being sprinkled, poured, im- 
mersed, with the sprinkling, pouring, immersion of John. But 
the Pharisees and lawyers rejected the counsel of God against 
themselves, being not sprinkled, poured, immersed of him. 

14. Luke XX. 4. The sprinkling, pouring, immersion of 
John, was it from heaven, or of men? 



176 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

15. John i. 25, 26. Why sprinkleth, poureth, baptizeth thou, 
then, if thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that prophet? 
John answered them, saying, I scatter in, pour in, immerse in 
water. 

16. Yerse 28. Beyond Jordan, where John was sprinkling, 
pouring, immersing. 

17. Yerse 31. That he should be made manifest to Israel; 
therefore I am come sprinkling in, pouring in, immersing in 
water. 

18. Yerse 33. He that sent me to sprinkle in, pour in, 
immerse in water. 

19. John iii. 23. And John also was sprinkling in, pour- 
ing in, immersing in Enon, near to Salim, because there was 
much water there ; and they came and were scattered, diffused, 
immersed. 

20. John iv. 1. The Pharisees heard that Jesus made and 
scattered, diffused, immersed more disciples than John. 

21. John X. 40. Beyond Jordan, into the place where John 
at first scattered, diffused, immersed. 

22. Matt, xxviii. 19. Go ye, therefore, and teach all nations, 
scattering, diffusing, immersing them in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

23. Mark xvi. 15, 16. And he said unto them. Go ye into 
all the world and preach the gospel to every creature; he that 
believeth and is sprinkled, poured, immersed shall be saved. 

24. Yerse 22. After these things came Jesus and his disci- 
ples into the land of Judea, and there tarried with them and 
scattered, diffused, immersed. 

25. Yerse 26. Behold the same scattereth, diffiiseth, im- 
merseth, and all men come to him. 

26. John iv. 1, 2. When therefore the Lord knew how 
the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and scattered, poured 
out, immersed more disciples than John, (though Jesus him- 
self sprinkled, poured, immersed not, but his disciples.) 

27. Rom. vi. 3, 4. Know ye not, that so many of us as were 
sprinkled into, poured into, immersed into Christ Jesus, were 
sprinkled, poured into his death? Therefore we are buried, 



Mode of Baptism. 177 

with him by sprinkling, pouring, popping, standing up, im- 
mersion into death, that, like as Christ was raised up from the 
dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
in newness of life. 

28. I Cor. 12, 13. For by one Spirit are we all sprinkled, 
poured, immersed into one body. 

29. Col. ii. 12. Buried with him in sprinkling, pouring, 
immersion, wherein ye also are risen with him. 

Let us apply the text to the figurative use of baptisma in 
Christ's allusion to his overwhelming suflering — 

I have a sprinkhng, a pouring, an immersion, to be sprinkled, 
poured, immersed in, and how am I straightened until it be 
accomplished. 

Was he but slightly touched, sprinkled with sufferings, or 
immersed, overwhelmed with them ? 

These, I believe, are all the texts in the I^ew Testament 
which have a plain and obvious reference to either the bap- 
tism of John or of Christ. They afford us the sum of all the 
knowledge which we can have of either the mode or subjects 
of Christian baptism. What these passages say, we may be- 
lieve; what they do not countenance, we may not believe. 

Can any mind not blinded with prejudice doubt for one 
moment that the inspired writers used baptidzo in the sense of 
immerse, and immerse only? This then must be its only 
meaning when used in its literal sense. 

My next argument is : 

Having seen by the usus loquendi of the verb baptidzo that it 
is invariably used by the evangelists in the sense of to immerse, 
and never in that of "pour upon," or "sprinkle upon," let us 
now see in what sense the inspired apostles understood it, and 
the preachers of the i^ew Testament age. 

My next argument is — 

The apostles to whom the commission was given, under- 
stood Christ to Command them to immerse those who should 
believe their words. 

It will be srranted that they understood what their divine 
12 



178 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Master meant when he commanded them to haj)tize believers 
among all nations. It was the one and self-same act to be 
observed in all nations, cold or hot, and in all times. 

In connection with the church at Jerusalem we have no cir- 
cumstantial history of baptism; we only know that believing men 
and women were baptized by thousands. In two revivals, soon 
after the ascension of Christ, there were eight thousand added 
by baptism to the church in that city. That they were im- 
mersed we know, if the primary and literal meaning of 6a2:'ff(i2;o 
means "to immerse," which is the fact I am demonstrating in 
this discussion. The scarcity of water in Jerusalem, and in the 
river Jordan, used to be a favorite argument with sprinklers 
until of late years, when eminent Pedobaptists as well as Bap- 
tist scholars have demonstrated that there was an abundance 
for all purposes, and especially for bathing purposes. No 
people bathed their whole bodies more often than the Jews; 
their religion and the traditions of their elders requiring fre- 
quent ablutions of the whole body. The millions of the males 
of Israel who went up three times a year to the city to wor- 
ship were required to bathe their bodies — immerse them — to 
prepare themselves for their temple worship. ]^o man who 
has any respect for his audience or his own reputation as an 
honest man or a scholar will deny that there was sufficient 
water in and around the city for the immersion of every person 
in Jerusalem. 

It was also common for some preachers to assert that the 
three thousand added on the day of Pentecost could not have 
been immersed that day, because there could not have been 
sufficient time after Peter's sermon to have immersed three 
thousand. We reply, if the record says they were immersed 
that day they most certainly were. Whatever sprinklers may 
say, let Glod be true. We know of no other way persons were, 
or can be now added to the church or an organized body of 
disciples except by Christian baptism and we understand the 
record to say that they were added that day. There was 
nothing conceivable to hinder. There was water enough : there 
was time enough. The ordinary time it requires to immerse 
a person now is thirty seconds, or one hundred and twenty in 



Mode of Baptism. 179 

an hour, oftener one hundred and eighty in an hour, where 
dispatch is aimed at. There were eighty-two commissioned 
administrators — i. e., the seventy disciples and the twelve 
apostles, and, at the lowest estimate, they could have immersed 
the three thousand in nineteen minutes ! We pass this. 

The next account we have of baptism is a very cicrumstan- 
tial one. 

The Case of Philip and the Eunuch. 

Philip was an evangelist, not a layman. We doubt not 
that he was one of the seventy disciples commissioned by 
Christ to preach and baptize; if not, he was commissioned by 
the Apostles or the Church of Jerusalem, for that was an 
orderly Church. But, upon this occasion, he received a 
special commission from the Holy Spirit to disciple and bap- 
tize the Eunuch. Let all ministers who claim they have a 
right to baptize where and whom they please without asking 
the will of the church, because Philip baptized the Eunuch 
without referring the question to a church, show the same 
commission from the Holy Ghost that Philip had, and let 
them remember that all special and personal commissions 
expired with the individuals to whom they were given. 

The narrative is a simple one. Let all turn to Acts and read 
from the twenty-seventh verse of the eighth chapter to the close : 
"And as they went along the way they came to a certain 
water" — i. e., a well known stream or body of water upon that 
road — "and the Eunuch said, 'see here is water what hinders 
that I should be baptized?'" In preaching Jesus, and only 
Jesus, to the Eunuch it seems he had preached the duty of 
being at once baptized, (very unlike the popular evangelists 
of this day). The Eunuch giving Philip the necessary 
evidence of his discipleship, and being accepted, commanded 
the chariot to stop ; and now mark the unmistakable descrip- 
tion of the act, " and they both went down into the water (kata 
besan amphoteroi eis to hudor), and, to place the possibility of a 
mistake out of the question, the Spirit emphasizes by a repe- 
tition, "both Philip and the eunuch" — i. e., went down into the 
water, " and he baptized him," i e., in the water. "And when 



i8o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

thej [anabesan ex tou hudatos) were come up out of the water, etc. 

!N"ow, whatever professional controversialists may say to 
the contrary, there are two things we do know about this 
baptism. 

1. There was water enough here for both Philip and the 
eunuch to go down into it together. 

2. And they did both go down in it; for no honest scholar 
will deny that the record declares this fact. Elder Ditzler nor 
any other man could frame a Greek sentence that would more 
clearly express the fact that they both went down together into 
the water. 

These two facts determined, and the meaning of ^a^^^f^^o is 
self-evident; it must mean here "to immerse," and nothing 
else. 

Mark the text of the record. The Holy Spirit declares that 
theEunuch was baptized, and not the water baptized upon him. 
If bai^tidzo primarily means to sprinkle or to pour, then, when 
these verbs are not followed by an object that is divisible or 
separable into particles like water or sand, a preposition indi- 
cating "on," or "upon," must be used to indicate the act. 

Remember that I have demonstrated that a person cannot 
be poured or sprinkled, i. e., divided and scattered into par- 
ticles — it is repugnant to human reason. We are convinced 
that no fair minded person can read this account of the 
Eunuch'sbaptism and not be forced to the conclusion that he 

was immersed in that certain water into which they both went 
down. A child of fourteen would form no other opinion. 

Here is what the most eminent Pedobaptist commentators are 

frank to say about it. 

"Calvin, in liis comment on this place, observes, 'Here we perceive 
how baiDtism was administered among the ancients, for they immersed 
the whole body in water.' Pengilly^ p. 33. 

"Doddridge, in his Family Expositor, says, ^Ihey both went down, etc. 
'It would be very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water 
merely that Philip might take up a little water to pour on the eunuch. 
A person of his dignity, no doubt, had many vessels in his baggage, on 
such a journey through a desert country, a precaution absolutely neces- 
sary for ti'avelers in those parts, and never omitted by them. lb. p. 38. 

"Every unprejudiced reader, whether he reads the the account of the 



Mode of Baptism. i8i 

Eunuch's baptism in our common English versions, or in the original 
Greek, will say here is an unmistakable example of baptism, in minute 
detail, and that baptism was an immersion." — Bailey {Bap.) p. 273. 

Lydia and the Jailor. 

In the case of the baptism of Lydia and the jailor, at 
Philippi, we have none of the circumstances of baptism 
alluded to to indicate the act, but we know that there was 
plenty of water at the very spot, by the river side, where Paul 
preached and Lydia prayed, for the purpose of the immersion 
of Lydia and her household ; and the same river was hard by 
the prison, if it did not wash its very walls; and we must be 
honest enough to believe, and candid enough to admit, that, 
if "immerse" is the primary meaning of the verb here em- 
ployed to indicate the act of baptism, then these two converts 
with their households, were immersed. I mention the cases 
to show that there was no conceivable obstacle in the way of 

their immersion. 

It has been urged that there was not water enough within 
the prison walls for sufficient immersion, when the best author- 
ities tell us there always was in all Eastern prisons, as there is 
still, when all thinking people know that the jailor, being respon- 
sible for his prisoners, could take them wherever he saw fit. 
There are ^yq hundred of the convicts of the penitentiary of 
Tennessee, from one to one hundred miles from their prison 
to-day, but in charge of their keepers. 

"One Immersion." 

The next reference to Christian baptism that I will briefly 
notice is to be found in Ephesians iv, 5, "One Lord, one faith, 
one immersion.'^ 

The only thing in favor of the act in this passage is the 
word itself, which I translate immersion because it cannot be 
translated by either sprinkling or pouring and make sense, and, 
therefore, must here, even if the noun haptisma might possibly 
elsewhere mean effusion, be translated immersion. Every one, 
of course, knows that " baptism " is no translation of baptisma. 
Eld, Ditzler will not claim that it is; it is either sprinkling, 



i82 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

'pouring or immersion. That it is water baptism alluded to here, 
we think no candid mind will doubt, and not spiritual bap- 
tism, as some controversialists affirm. The operations of the 
Spirit are embraced in the allusion to the one Spirit in the fourth 
verse. Christian baptism follows the one faith, and the one 
Lord, and the one body, because it is the act in and by which 
we profess the one faith in the one Lord, and are by it intro- 
duced into the one body, which is the church of God. This 
statement is most unquestionably true to-day. 

But if the baptism of the Spirit is alluded to, then there 
are certainly two baptisms in force, that of the Spirit and that 
of water, which is not the case ; and since we know that water 
baptism was instituted to be observed in the churches of Christ 
to the end of the ages, we would know, if the Holy Spirit had 
not told us, that Spirit baptism had passed away with the other 
gifts. But we may easily ascertain the meaning of this noun 
by determining the subject of the baptism. Is it water, then it 
must mean sprinkling or pouring, but if it is a person or per- 
sons, then it must mean immersion, because persons cannot 
be the subject of baptidzo without a preposition being expressed 
or understood. 

But finally, if all Greek lexicons give immersion as the 
primary meaning of the Greek term baptisma, then it must 
mean one immersion in this passage, and nothing else. But 
every Greek lexicon, known to me, does give immersion as the 
definition of baptisma; therefore an immersion is its true 
definition. 

Mark if Eld. Ditzler presents a lexicon that gives sprinkling 
or pouring as the primary meaning of baptisma. If he does 
not, he gives up this passage by his very silence, and I have 
proved that the whole question before us is demonstratively 
settled by this one passage. There is one immersion. 

"Buried In Baptism." Rom. vi. 4; Col. ii. 12; I Cor. xv. 29. 

In these three passages the apostle evidently sets forth the 
design or symbolism of Christian baptism. Had not the tra- 
dition of the elder's aifusion been foisted into the practice of 
Drofessed churches there never would have been a doubt 



Mode of Baptism, 183 

raised touching the symbolism of the ordinance, as set forth 
in these passages. Among the Christian fathers, as among 
the most eminent and standard Pedobaptist commentators of 
every age, there is no disagreement as to the symbolic teaching 
of the rite — i. e. that the believer sets forth the death, burial 
and resurrection of Christ, and of his own conformity to, and 
participation in, the same events, by a burial of the whole 
body in water, as Christ was buried in the Jordan to prefigure 
his ovvn death and burial, and rising and coming up out of the 
water, as he did, to represent his future resurrection, which 
symbolism is a graphic epitome of the whole gospel of Christ, 
as he declared it to be the figurative " fulfilling of all righ- 
teousness. ' 

Paul thus sets forth these three acts : 

" Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached 
unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand ; by which 
also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless 
ye have believed in vain. For I delivered unto you first of all that which 
I alsQ received, how that Christ died for our sins, according to the Scrip- 
tures ; and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day, accord- 
ing to the Scriptures." — [1 Cor. iv, 1-4. 

That Paul intended to teach that, in their baptism, the 
Corinthians set forth these facts, and pre-eminently the resur- 
rection of Christ for our justification. In the twenty-ninth 
verse of the same chapter he refers to the profession which 
they had made in their baptism, in proof that there is to be a 
future resurrection of the dead. It appears that there were 
some who declared that the resurrection was already past, or 
i;hat there would be no resurrection of the dead. (Verse 
12). Paul's argument is, that if this was so, they made a false 
profession in the very act of their baptism, and consequently 
the entire system of Christianity which they embraced was 
false. " Else what shall they do which are baptized for the 
[resurrection of the] dead, if the dead rise not at all ? Why 
are they then baptized for the [resurrection of] the dead? 
And why stand we in jeopardy every hour?" In other words, 
why did you represent the resurrection of the dead in your 
baptism, if indeed there is to be no resurrection ? Why did 
you, then, in your baptism, declare your faith in a resurrec- 



184 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tion? If this be the signification of the ordinance, then it 
must be clear to all that the act of immersion alone can repre- 
sent it; sprinkling and pouring are out of the question. In 
no conceivable way does the sprinkling of a few drops of 
water upon a person represent a burial, which is the only like- 
ness of death in the universe, or the resurrection of Christ 
from the grave. 

The only question Eld. Ditzler can raise here, is whether 
these expressions refer to water baptism. He like a few 
other controversialists, will deny that they do, because if once 
admitted the act is determined to have been immersion, and 
nothing else, beyond all controversy. 

That they do refer to water baptism there is, with but few 
exceptions, the utmost accord among the scholars of all de- 
nominations. If any one taught otherwise until within the 
present century, I have not learned it. 

As I have, in a former speech, quoted some thirty of these, 
and as I shall have occasion to quote many of them again on 
another proposition, I will show here that it is the doctrine of 
Elder Ditzler's church, which he stands here to represent, and 
if he opposes its doctrines, why, then, he and his bishops for it. 

Bishop McTyeire, in his recent Manual, tells us that Wesley's 
Works, Adam Clarke, R. Watson, the Discipline, and the 
standard authors published by the Book Concern are the re- 
liable exponents of the faith of Methodists, and not any par- 
ticular traveling preacher. Now, let us see what these teach 
concerning these passages. 

Wesley, the father and' founder of Methodism, says in his 
notes : 

'" Buried with him, ' alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by 
immersion."— Rom. vi. 4. 

Will Elder Ditzler put up his opinion against Wesley ? 

" Dr. a. Clarke,— " They received baptism as an emblem of death, in 
voluntarily going under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of res- 
urrection unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water. (Com. on 1 
Cor. XV. 29.) *It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of 
administering baptism by immersion, the whole body being put under the 
water,'— Rom, vi, 6, 



Mode of Baptism. 185 

Whitfield. — ' It is certain that in the words of our text (Rom. vi. 3, 4) 
there is an allusion to the manner of baptism, which was by immersion." 

Benson and Burkitt are commentators whose works are 
published by the Methodist book Concern. 

Benson says : 

"We are buried with him," alluding to the ancient manner of baptiz- 
ing by immersion." — Roman vi. 4 

Burkitt says : 

*' * We are buried with him by baptism into death.' The apostle alludes, 
no doubt, to the ancient way and manner of baptizing persons in those 
hot countries, which was by immersion, or putting them under water for 
a time, and then raising them up again out of the water." — ^Expo. on 
Rom. vi. 4. 

"Dr. S. Clake. — 'Rom. viii. 11. And this was most significantly 
represented by their descending into the water, and rising out of it again. 
For as Christ descended into the earth, and was raised again from the dead 
by the glory of the Father, so persons baptized were buried with him by 
baptism into death ( Rom. vi. 4), and rose again after the similitude of his 
resurrection.' Three Essays, p. 12." 

Whatever Elder Ditzler may think or say, in this we have 
the faith of all orthodox Methodists endorsed by the General 
Conference. This is enough for my purpose, and I submit 
my argument from these passages. 

1. If they refer to water baptism, as all standard commenta- 
tors of all ages teach that they do, then, immersion of 
believers in water must have been the act, and the only act 
known to the apostles and the Kew Testament church. 

2. But these passages do most obviously refer to water bap- 
tism, for to refer them to the baptism of the Spirit is incon- 
gruous and contradictory; for, by that baptism no one was 
ever baptized into Christ or into his death or into the likeness of 
his death, nor did Christ himself ever receive that baptism ; nor 
has any living Christian. 

3. Therefore immersion was the act which the apostles 
understood Christ to command when he gave the commission. 

Against all this, and the voice of his own church and of its 
great scholars. Elder D. may oppose his opinions and his asser- 
tions but he can do nothing more. His brethren must choose 
between him and their church. 



1 86 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

"Our bodies washed in pure water." 

I have no doubt that this passage refers to Christian bap- 
tism, for the apostle evidently teaches us that the acts are the 
antitypes of the typical purification for uncleanness, as 
enjoined in Numbers xix, 17 to 19: 

"And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt 
heifer of purification for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a 
vessel ; and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and 
sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons 
that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one 
dead, or a grave ; and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on 
the third day, and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall 
piu'ify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and 
shall be clean at even." 

This v^ater of purification represented the cleansing efficacy 
of the blood of Christ, and the sprinkling of it upon defiled 
persons represented the sprinkling of the blood of Christ 
upon the conscience, cleansing it from all sin, and the bathing 
of the person in water, which involved an immersion, was 
typical of the immersion of the cleansed convert ! — indicative 
of the fact that we should be inwardly and outwardly pure, 
that not only should we be pure in heart, but obedient in 
our lives ; our souls and our bodies being thus consecrated 
to the service of God. 

With this view of the passage, how appropriate the language 
of Paul? Baptism becomes a profession of our faith, and 
fitness for the body of Christ — bathing the entire body, in 
the type, was a declaration of the subject's purification from 
sin, and fitness for the congregation of Israel and the service 
of his God. 

I say of this passage as Conybeare and Howson say of 
Romans vi, 4 : '' This passage cannot be understood unless it 
be borne in mind that the primitive baptism was by immers- 
ion." I shall have use for this passage in another proposition, 
to show that in every case the cleansing work of the Spirit 
precedes baptism. 

Thus have I shown, that in every instance where the apos- 
tles refer to Christian baptism, in all their writings, they 



Mode of Baptism. 187 

clearly teach that immersion only was the one act which the 
Savior enjoined, when he commanded them to baptize; and 
infallibly guided as they were by the Holy Spirit, they could 
not have erred. Immersion must have been the act. 

Here I close the examination of the Few Testament, havinsr 
demonstrated that John, Christ and the evangelists and in- 
spired apostles, one and all, used baptidzo and baptisma in the 
sense of " immerse " and " immersion " and in no other. 
That the act, w^hen spoken of by Paul, is called a '' burying," 
a " planting," and a bathing or washing of the body in water, 
(Rom. 6, 4. Heb. x, 22.) 

I have also shown that the symbolism of Christian baptism 
demands the immersion of the whole body, and that the 
sprinkling or pouring of a few drops of water upon the head 
will, in no sense, satisfy the figure of the passage, and is 
therefore out of the question. 

I have shown that in every passage in which baptidzo and 
baptisma occur, immerse and immersion alone will make 
sense, and therefore are the only proper meanings of these 
terms. I am willing to submit my Bible argument to the 
verdict of all unprejudiced men. The question now to be 
considered, is: Do classic authors, do the Lexicons and 
Ancient Versions; do historians and standard scholars, though 
Pedodaptists, support the New Testament meaning of baptidzo 
i. e., that primarily and literally it means to immerse? In the 
examination of these, I shall reply to all relevant arguments my 
opponent may have put forward, drawn from these sources. 

Replication. 

1. He affirms that he endorses Blackstone, in everything, and 
yet he really does in nothing expressed under our rule. 
Blackstone says that in interpreting law, " words must be used 
in their most usual and most known signification." Elder D. 
invariably selects the secondary — figurative and remote mean- 
ings ! 'Now he says that the current meaning of a word is not 
its meaning, and that the definitions placed first in the lexi- 
cons, are not the primary ! It seems useless to refute a state- 



1 88 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ment that every scholar and intelligent reader knows to be false. 
I will only quote the Rules of Interpretation agreed upon by 
us at the outstart : 

I. Every icord must have some specific idea or notion which we call meaning. 
Were not this so, words would be meaningless and useless. ' 

II. The literal^ which is also called the grammatical sense of a word, is 
the sense so connected with it that it is first in order, and is spontaneously 
presented to the mind as soon as the sound is heard. This naeaning is 
always (save in one lexicon, i. e., Stokius') placed first in the lexicons, 
and is known as the primary meaning. 

III. " The primary or literal meaning is the only true one.'''' — Urnesti, 
p.U. 

Ernesti quotes Morus in support of this : 

*' There can be no certainty at all in respect to the interpretation of any 
passage, unless a kind of necessity' compels us to aflix a particular sense 
to a word; which sense, as I have before said, must he one; and unless 
there are special reasons for a tropical (or secondary) meaning, it must be 
the hteral sense." 

The primary or literal meaning, is the only true one, and 
this in all lexicons (save one, Stokius', and he informs us of 
the change,) is placed first in the lexicons, and this is the one 
I have invariably used, while my opponent has used figurative 
ones throughout ! 

This is another settled point, and I shall discuss it no more. 
He will succeed in making himself the laughing stock of 
every schoolboy by his historical primary. 

He says he endorses Blackstone, and yet misinterprets him 

to mean what he does not say. Blackstone does not say that 

'' the literature to be examined must be kindred," etc. 'Not 

one word like it; but here are his very words: 

"If words happen still to be dubious, we may establish their meaning 
from the context, etc. Of the same nature and use is the comparison of law 
with laivs that are made by the same legislator, that have some affinity with 
the subject J or that expressly relate to the same poixt." [See my 
fourth speech.] 

The Elder asks, ""What affinity classic Greek has with 
i^ew Testament Greek?" 

We will see what affinity Classic Greek has with Bible 
Greek, when I reach the lexicons, and I will show you that 
unless it is the same Greek, the j^ew Testament is not a reve- 
lation to man. Remember that Elder Ditzler denies that 
it has a;iv relation. 



Mode of Baptism. 189 

2. But what did we hear fall from his lips? Why, that 
Christ and the inspired writers of the I^ew Testament did not 
understand Greek! That the Divine Son of God did not 
know the meaning of the verb baptidzo, which he used when 
he commanded John and his own disciples to baptize — when 
he gave the commission, "the one law of baptism." Think 
of it; Christ charged with giving a law in terms which he 
did not himself understand ! I have no such charge against 
my Law- Giver. If the Greeks, in any age, had used baptidzo, 
Christ knew what they meant by the term, and I here assert 
what I shall prove when I reach the classic writers of Greece, 
that what baptidzo meant to the Greeks two hundred years be- 
fore Christ, that it meant when Christ spoke the language 
and the evangelists and the apostles wrote it, and that it 
meant in A. D. 1100, and that it means this day. I will show 
when I reach the lexicons, what every one before me knows, 
who is accountable, that '' to make drunk," no more than to 
wash, is the meaning of baptidzo — no more than to look into a 
book is a definition of our verb to dip. Yet we say of a 
book, that we have just dipped into it, here and there ; but what 
would this community think of me, and what would the 
scholars present say, should I seriously claim that to read 
a little while here and there is the real meaning of to dip? 

All must have observed, that up to this time, my arguments 
from the Bible have met with very little opposition, indeed, 
so little, I feel safe in saying that they are impliedly conceded. 
If he could have demolished them, he would have done so, 
but he has scarce made an attempt. 

He has brought forward the phrase diaphorois baptismois, 
" divers washings." Hebrew x, 9, and insists that they refer 
to the sprinklings, and pourings, and partial washings en- 
joined under the Mosaic law for purification. My position is, 
that the reference is to the immersions enjoined for various 
pollutions that could not be cleansed except by immersing or 
bathing the whole body in water. His whole disquisition 
touching the brazen laver, and the innumerable baptisms by 
sprinkling, ( we can as well say sprinklings by immersion ) are 
waste words. I certainly never, in my review of Stuart or 
elsewhere, mentioned that they were divers sorts of immer- 



1 9© The Great Carrollton Debate. 

sions, but immersions for divers purposes. Two quotations 
will abundantly suffice to support my view. 

"Dr. J. Alting. — ' Washings the apostle calls diaphorous bapiismous 
divers baptisms — that is, various immersions, for baptismos is immersion^ since 
the whole body immerged ; but the term is never used concerning asper- 
sion. The Seventy use bapto or bapUdzo for tabal, he dipped, he dipped into^ he 
immerged; whence baptismos, with the Hebrews, is called tabelah. The 
Avord hazzah, he spriiikled, they never translate baptidzo, because it signifies 
more than is expressed by that Hebrew term ; but instead of it they use 
r/iaino, perirraino, prosraino, rhantizo. perrirantizo, to sprinkle. The verb 
rahhatz, he washed, is frequently used, either alone or with the addition of the 
viordflesh, and the whole flesh, which is baptism. It is often used in connec- 
tion with the washing of the clothes ; whence the Jews observe that, when- 
ever a command occurs for washing the clothes, the washing the whole 
lx)dy is either added or understood. Further, those Jewish baptisms were 
manifold; as of the high priest [Lev. xvi, 4] ; of the priests, at their con- 
secration [Ex. xxix. 4 ; Lev. viii. 6] ; and of the Levites, when about to be 
appointed to their office (Num. viii. 7, 21) ; of all Israel, when the cove- 
nant was to be promulgated (Ex. xix, 10, 14); especially of those that 
were defiled by the carcass of an unclean animal ( Lev. xi. ) ; by the 
leprosy )Lev. xiv. ) ; ' etc. Opera, tom. iv.. Com. in Epis. ad Heb., p. 260." 

"Dr. Kitto. — 'The Mosaic law recognizes eleven species of unclean- 
iiess from positive defilement, the purification from which ceased at the 
end of a certain period, provided the miclean person then ivashed his body 
and his clothes ; but in a few cases, such as leprosy, and the defilement con- 
tracted by touching a dead body, he remained unclean seven days after 
the physical cause of pollution had ceased. This kind of ablution for sub- 
stantial uncleanness answers to the Moslem — ghash.' ( In this the body 
is whollj^ immersed : not a single hair must be omitted.) " 

These witnesses are supported by all Jewish scholars and 
expositors. We see then, and know, that they did immerse 
themselves after coming from market ; and we can understand 
what the apostles meant by divers immersions; therefore 
baptisma signifies in translation and this place immersion. 
His translation of Maimonides is strikingly characteristic. 
Translating Hebrew, no more than Greek, is his forte — he is 
so peculiarly unfortunate. E'ow I must so far anticipate my 
arguments from Ancient Versions, as to say here, what no 
scholar will deny, that the verb taval and noun tahelah, in 
Hebrew, mean, literally and primarily, to immerse and immer- 
sion, and never anything else, except figurativel}-. With 
these facts in your mind, notice how he translated Maimon- 
ides. I will repeat it : 

" Wherever in the law washing occurs, either of the body, {bashar flesh) 



Mode of Baptism. 191 

or of the garments, from defilement, (m'"n,) nothing else is to be under- 
stood than the washing ( tabelah ) [ tabelah means immersion, and not waf^h- 
ing — never, except by metonymy], of the whole body at a fountain, [or 
in concepticle of "v^iater]. And that which is said, [here extra defile- 
ment is described], 'and he shall not wash (shataph) his hands witli 
water," is to be understood as if he said he must wash {shitabul^ tahal) his 
whole body with water. And after the same order shall other impurities 
be judged of; so that if one should wash himself all over ( tnhal kulo). 

It is by the sort of translation indicated above that he seeks 
to make out his case. I will translate it Hterally. "Wherever 
in the law washings occur, either of the flesh or the gar- 
ment from defilement, nothing else is to be understood than 
the — tabelah — immersion of the whole body in a bath. And 
that which is said "he shall not wash his hands in water,'' is to 
be understood as if he said he must — tabal — immerse his 
whole body in water. And after the same order shall other 
impurities be judged of, so that if one should — tahal — immerse 
himself all over except the extremity of his little finger, he 
is yet in his uncleanness. 

Take this with what Dr. Alting says of the verb rachats, 
to wash, when used in connection with thebody or^^^sA or the 
clothes, that it always implies an immersion. My opponent 
talks about " crushing facts " in his last speech. I think these 
I have now submitted are of this character, but I am willing 
to admit that his translation was a crushing one — to a schol- 
arly reputation. 

If he will give the text of the whole sentence in which his 
claimed baptism, epi Jcoitce, occurs, I will examine it and prove 
to you that Clemens Alexandrianus never did say that Jew or 
Gentile was baptized upon a couch. I want him to do it, 
and then we will have another trial of his translating. 

You will please notice that he disclaims translating tingo, 
the Latin word, that all the ancient lexicons give as a defi- 
nition of baptidzo, by sprinkle. See if he does not in the end 
fully rely altogether upon it to make out his case. 

What were the mighty array of crushing facts he brought 
forward from his Greek lexicons — what were they? Did you 
hear him read " to sprinkle or to pour,'' as the primary meaning 
of one of them? If he did, then ho interpolated it into his 
author? I challenge him to prorluco one standard lexicon of 



192 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

the Greek language that gives "to sprinkle," as a primary 
meaning. I call this a crushing fact; but to whom? To 
whose cause? 

Let me tell you, and he will not presume to deny it, that 
not one of those authors he mentioned, gives adspergo^ con- 
s^pergo, aspersio, per or profundo as the proper, primary, or 
literal signification of baptidzo. They are not one of them the 
proper meaning of baptidzo. 

Eld. Ditzler repeatedly affirms that, if Paul refers to water 
baptism, Rom. vi, 4, then he insists that Paul was under 
water when he was writing and all the brethren at Rome 
were still under water, because the English version has 
it, " are buried." What a criticism for a scholar! !N'otwith- 
standing I have shown him that the text is in the aoiist tense , 
which points to a past transaction, as every scholar knows, 
yet he calls upon me to produce modern scholarship in support 
of my position. I will here introduce Conybeare and How- 
son; they are scholars, and standards, and their book is one 
of the text books prescribed by the Conference for young min- 
isters to study. They translate this passage thus: 

' ' What shall we say then ? Shall we persist in sin that the gift of 
grace may be more abundant? God forbid. We, who have died to sin, 
how can we any longer live in sin ; or have you forgotten that all of us, 
when we were baptized into fellowship with Christ Jesus, were baptized 
into fellowship with his death ? with him, therefore, we were buried by 
the baptism wherein we shared his death," etc., and in a marginal note 
they add : ' ' This passage cannot be undeestood unless it be 

BORNE IN MIND THAT THE PRIMITIVE BAPTISM WAS BY IMMERSION." 

I now call attention to the law of evidence. My witnesses 
are all disinterested men, in fact, they are denominationally 
identified with my opponent ; that is, they are Pedobaptists, 
and cannot, therefore, be prejudiced in my favor at all, and 
yet notice how fully, in every position I have taken, they sus- 
tain me. Against all these, and the obvious meaning of the 
word of God, you have Elder Ditzler's unsupported assertion ! 

In my next speech, I shall show what baptidzo means in 
classic Greek, before, in the days of, and subsequent to th^ 
apostoUc age, and will examine some of Elder Ditzler's 
strange assertions. — [ Time ouf] 



Mode of Baptism. 



193 



DR. DITZLER'S NINTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — Dr. G-raves says some strange 
things. He says the sacred teachers never command where it 
is elliptical. It is a wonder he does not recollect that the com- 
mission itself is elliptical — very much so. Baptize — whom? 
the nations as such? 0, no, says he — it is elliptical language — 
it means those believing, he will tell you. 

But he throws himself on that canon that A. Campbell 
relied on — surrendered by our opponents in Kentucky, that 
the verb must terminate upon the individual, as haptidzo does, 
and sprinkle cannot do so. Hence baptidzo cannot mean to 
sprinkle, as sprinkle implies to scatter in drops or disperse as 
dust, ashes, water. I am astonished that a man of Dr. Graves' 
capacity should hold to such an opinion. We have noticed it 
before, but let us expose fully this thin and innocent conceit 
of immersionists. 

1. There are verbs that take two accusatives. That ought 
to show him his error. 

2. We do not hold that haptidzo means to sprinkle only, and 
nothing else; for we have shown the contrary abundantly. It 
belongs to that large class of verbs that primarily meant to 
sprinkle, yet mean to moisten, wet, pour, drench, intoxicate, 
wash, overflow, etc. — sink. ISTow halal in Hebrew, all authori- 
ties agree, means primarily to sprinkle, yet comes to mean to 
dip). It takes the accusative — terminates on the object always. 
Chamats to sprinkle, mathath, sprinkle, take direct objects, 
terminate on the object sprinkled with water, just as raino in 
Greek does. Let us take now a few of the sixteen or eighteen 
Greek words that mean to sprinkle at times. We select raino, 
or rantidzo, they constantly take the direct object — terminate 
upon the object — sprinkle a man, book, house, rock, floor — 
just as our English word sprinkle. So does passo (patto) 
brecho, deuo, kludzo, pallasso, aionao, koniao; All these termi- 

13 



194 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

nate upon the man, the object, and mean to sprinkle, some of 
them meaning that, almost all the time. This destroys his 
theory. Surely they never scatter the objects they terminate 
upon, in drops or in dust. 

3. A number of them mean to moisten also, to stain, color. 
To color or stain does not mean to scatter in drops. The 
Hebrew, Arabic, etc., have many, many words that mean to 
sprinkle, moisten, color, dip, immerse — same word meaning 
all those things. Now we gave a perfect catalogue of words 
with such meanings. This I must say ridiculous canon (?) of 
theirs, contradicts all these facts, denies the definition? of 
every and all lexicons of all the languages of Europe and Asia 
Minor. It charges Paul, Solomon, David, Isaiah, all with 
ignorance. Then 

4. I presumed the fact that as words meaning to moisten, 
color, stain, necessarily terminate upon the object stained, de- 
filed, soiled, wet, moistened, yet did it by sprinkling the 
object with the coloring, soiling, defiling matter or liquid, that 
would make it clear to his mind. But it did not, 

5. As Origen and Basil say baptize the wood, baptize the 
altar where it was pouring — so declared by the Bible — I 
Kings xviii, 33, David baptized his couch, the woman baptized 
the feet of Christ with her tears, they baptized — Syriac 
sprinkled the coat of Joseph with "blood of a kid — these 
facts should settle it alone also. "We assert — it is correct 
Grammar — there is no ellipsis in the form, when we say 
sprinkle a man. It is correct in Latin, Greek, German, Ara- 
bic, Hebrew, Syriac, Chaldee or Italian. Our English sprinkle 
is meant to meet all words meaning to sprinkle, and as sojiie 
mean to disperse, scatter in drops — our word sometimes im- 
plies it, but in seven cases, if not nine, out of every ten, it is 
not the case. I need not revert to this more. 

That you may see how absurd is the rendering of haptidzo 
by immerse — that you may see that it is not immerse — that 
immerse is never an equivalent oi haptidzo in the N. T., let me 
put it into English. The English of immerse is sink in, sink. 
How will it read now from the position of Dr. Graves in his 
last speech to carry it out, and say, in those days came John 



, Mode of Baptism. 195 

the sinker. It is rendered soak by several Baptists. In those 
days came John the soaker, Sophocles, whom Dr. Graves 
eulogized so much, renders baptidzo " soaked in liquor," 
" drown," '^ sink," " intoxicate." "Go ye disciple all nations 
drowning them, &c." "Ye shall be soaked in fire." The 
Doctor falls back on that old crotchet, as weak as the " scatter- 
in-drops" hobby, that if baptidzo means to pour, to sprinkle, 
and to immerse, not till all three of these are effected is he 
baptized ! ! Does the Doctor really, candidly believe in such — 
well, must I say logic or trash as that ? Take now classic use, 
baptidzo is applied to intoxicating, burdening with debts, 
calamities, confusing with questions, aspersing, pouring tor- 
rents of abuse upon people. Does he not know that if 
any one of these happened to one, he was baptized ? If Plato 
got drunk he was classically baptized. If Clinias was over- 
whelmed with questions, he was baptized. If a city was over- 
whelmed with calamities, it was baptized. If a land was 
overflowed it was baptized. If a ship went to the bottom it 
was baptized. If a man had a torrent of abuse poured upon 
him he was baptized. In none of these senses is it used in the 
l!^ew Testament. It indicates the purifying spirit there. As 
in the one case if any one of these processes takes place the object 
is baptized in its classic sense, so if he be sprinkled or perfused 
or immersed and emersed, he is baptized. In no case 
did it require all its classic meaning to be carried out, to 
constitute classic literature, but only one, so here of course. 
It is hard to understand why immersionists are so stolid here, 
when they know all these facts hold good m every word on earth. 
Take go. If I ride on horse, in buggy, car, stage, walk, 
travel in boat or balloon, 1 go. Do I have to do all to gof 
Purify. Houses were purified one way, some people one way, 
some another. For some ceremonial defilements, some men 
were purified one way, some another. A great many ways 
were they purified. But whatever the mode, it was all a puriii- 
cation. So here, it is baptism, whether by sprinkling, pouring 
or dipping, though it does not even mean to dip. 

He proposes to substitute sprinkle wherever baptidzo occurs 
to test whether you can baptize by sprinkling. Does not 



ig6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

baptidzo apply to being drunk, to sinking ships, to pouring abuse 
on people, to overflowing, &c., &c.? Kow substitute one of 
these terms — each of them wherever baptidzo occurs, and what 
will you have ? Balal in Arabic is to sprinkle most commonly, 
yet we saw it translated bapto where one is to dip his finger 
in water, another dip his hand in the dish — will it do to say 
sprinkle in those cases ? 'Now why not throw away all this child's 
play criticism and come out and confront the great facts 
involved in this question by which alone both causes are to be 
tried — tested? You purify, cleanse houses, people, vessels^ 
ceremonially in the law almost always by sprinkling. Sup- 
pose you substitute sprinkle for cleanse, purify — will it do? 
Now the truth is, while baptidzo means primarily to sprinkle, 
moisten, wet, then pour, wash, it has by Conant 14, by A. 
Campbell 20 meanings — but as a I^ew Testament word for 
one of the ordinances of the church no one ivord can represent 
it. Sink will not — i. e. immerse. Sinking is not baptizing in 
a Christian sense. I put a man clear under water — is he 
immersed? Yes. Is he baptized f No, He is not out yet — 
must rfse. Well he is immersed now, that is settled? Yes. 
He is not yet baptized? No. Then I lift him up — he stands 
out of the water. Is he now immersed "i No. Is he baptized? 
You. S3.J yes. Then you see immersion is not baptism — cannot^ 
translate the word. It is a perversion that requires a terrible 
aberration of mind to sanction to call immersion — mere 
immersion baptism, where no Baptist on earth would accept it 
without the emersion also. There is that in baptism in the New 
Testament sense, which no one word can represent — neither 
sprinkle, pour, immerse, i.e., sink — no, nor purify even. Hence 
in all languages that have affinity with the Greek in early ver- 
sions it was transferred in the il^ew Testament altogether. The 
two Latin, the Sahidic and Basmuric, 2nd and 3rd centuries, 
all transfer the word. Hence all our six English versions and 
all Latin ones, wherever the ordinance is referred to, transfer 
it. It is rendered wash, in other cases save by the Vulgate. 
So the Spanish, Italian, French, &c., do. The others translate 
by generic words that had no trace of modality left, such as the 
German ich taufe euch mit ivasser — using that term when they 
dipped, when they sprinkled them, when they poured water upon 



Mode of Baptism. 



197 



them. Ileuce it was used by them as we do baptize — the 
word of an ordinance with no regard to its mode. These are 
facts he dare not gainsay. 

He says baptidzo was used as tingo is, if I caught his words. 
It is certain Cyprian, TertuUian and the Latin fathers used 
tingo most constantl}^ to represent baptism in their writings in 
the 2nd and 3rd centuries. But that is anything else than 
imw£rse. Tingo means to moisten, to wet, and those are the 
renderings first given by every standard Latin lexicon in 
Europe or America — Freund^ Andrews, Schiller, Leverett, 
Bullion, White, Anthon — all of them, and all the large ones, 
give it as the equivalent of the Greek tengo^ brecho, hugraino — 
all being Greek words of affusion^ as he will not deny. 
Most of them do not give dip as a remote, derived meaning 
of ^m^o, while Ainsworth givesto sprinkle. It is often used 
where it is by sprinkling. The word, all agree, is from the Greek 
tengo as Carson says, and means in Greek to moisten. It is most 
applied to the effect of falling tears, sometimes to dew, &c. 
Now is it not assuming much to translate this word tingo^ in 
view of these facts, immerse, or dip, as necessarily implying 
total putting under the element? It only implies dip at all 
derivatively^ then often a very partial dip. Furst uses it for the 
German benetzen — moisten. Schindler uses it for brecho, 
applied to tears, rain, &c. But I care not for tingo as I built 
nothing on it at all. I'translate it moisten or wet, and giving 
its remote meanings in my debate with Dr. Wilkes, I pat dip 
and sjprinkle^ both, for so it is rendered by lexicons, and by 
the best standards put equivalent to Greek words meaning to 
sprinkle, shed forth, &c. Such is the word by the Latin 
fathers for baptize. 

Again Dr. Graves comes upon tzeva, baptize. Let me quote 
Dr. J. R. Graves, he copying Judd the Baptist so zealous for 
immersion. Appendix to M. Stuart, p. 247; " But amad, ... is 
not the only word used in the Syriac to translate baptizo. The 
verg ivord {tzeva) which Professor Stuart mentions as properly sig- 
nifying IMMERSION, is often used to designate the ordinance of bap- 
tism. Professor Stuart with Michaelis in his hands, cannot be 
ignorant of this." All that is true — it is so used. In the Ar- 



198 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

abic it translates haptidzo in the IN'ew Testament over thirt^^ 
timesj and is used in Acts viii. 38, where the Eunuch was bap- 
tized. Now what will the Doctor say to this ? In the golden 
age of Arabic learning, when they translated Horner^ Aristo- 
tle and Plato, and studied them well; when they had lin- 
guists that used forty-seven dialects and invented Algebra ; 
when they had libraries of hundreds of thousands of volumes- 
in their golden age of culture the}/ translated haptidzo by this 
word. Yet Furst defines tzeva thus: "to moisten, to be- 
sprinkle, to baptize, Pual, to water, to moisten." Castell 
gives ''pour out^" [effudit) and Jerome the learned Hebrew and 
Syriac scholar of the 4th century, translates it once conspergatur 
— sprinkle^ once infunderis besprinkled . Who is wild, crazy. ? 

!N"ow this word that Stuart surrendered to the immersionists 
most inconsistently — for its Greek rendering in Dan^ iv and v, 
Stuart uses ablv for his side — was so little examined that S. 
thought it was immerse, whereas the only places in which it 
occurs in the whole Old Testament are the very cases where 
from the Greek, Stuart supports sprinkling. It is inconsistent 
to quote the Greek of a passage to prove it occurs there in 
the sense of sprinkle^ jet admit and state that the original 
Chaldee of which the Greek is a mere version, supports immer- 
sion. It is the case of the King's " body wet with dew from 
Heaven." So the original reads. 

!N"ow, then, to show further that tzeva, which translates. 
haptidzo in Syriac and Arabic as well as baptO; applies to 
affusion, it occurs of blood gushing from a wound, to juice 
dropping or trickling from trees cut, from vines — so used in 
Al Koran also. This word was regarded by the immersionists: 
as so firmly fixed as their's that it was used by them as unques- 
Honed property. 'No marvel if they hate to surrender it,, 
especially does it hurt. These facts show several things. 

1. That this question has been treated even by such men as 
Stuart with entire empiricism — neglect of study and pains. 

2' That immersionists jump at conclusions with no foun- 
dation to rest upon. 

3. That this whole question badly needed a careful^. scieii° 
tific treatment. 



Mode of Baptism. 199 

Kow, then, we have all points clearly before you. Dr. 
Graves makes the sprinkle of brecho very little — it was a light 
sprinkle — not baptidzo^ but brecho, applied to ver^/ slight sprink- 
lings. Exactly so. We accede to all that. But the point is 
— when the Syrians and Arabians translate that delicate sprinkle 
by their leading word for baptize, what becomes of your inh- 
mersef Does that word that translates so delicate a sprinkle 
mean and imply immersion f It shows that when they used it 
for translating baptidzo, they did not regard baptidzo as mean- 
ing immerse in the Bible anywhere at all. 

As to " bury." until the Doctor answers the facts we adduce, 
we need pay no attention to it farther. We showed that it 
did not "necessarily imply covering up, as Jer. xxii, 19 
shows where twice it applies to a man left on the ground to 
decay, ^' buried with the burial of an ass," The dark age writers 
clung to it as a great text. We do not rely on them, but the 
Bible. 

The Doctor now goes back on the Peshito, He wishes to 
date it later now than he did when he thought it favored im- 
mersion. When he endorsed Judd, who says : " It was made 
at least as early as the beginning of the second century." Ap. to 
Stuart, p. 215, it was all right. John lived till then. He 
thicks it was likelv made earlier than then, as all of the eminent 
Syriac scholars, who are the only competent critics here, held. 
So held that great fountain of criticism, Walton, Carpzov, 
Leusden, Davidson, Lowth, Kennicott, Tremelius and Stiles, 
President of Yale College. Dr. Gale regarded it as quite as 
authoritative as the autographs of the apostles. We read his 
words once to you. Origen, born A. D. 186, quotes its title, 
A. D. 215, as a familiar work. It shows that our opponents 
value anything only if it favors their notions, dates, values, 
all are thus to be estimated — they turn back upon their own 
records fearlessly, if they find their cause suffering. 

Dr. Graves tells us now that all the lexicons give immerse 
as the primary meaning. E"ot a word of it. He asserts that 
the first definition set down by a lexicographer is the primary 
meaning of a word. That is utterly gratuitous ; not the case. 
Let us see^ however^ if the lexicons are as uniform as he 



200 . The Great Carrollton Debate. 

makes them to be. We think not. We will begin with his 
favorite — Liddell and Scott — " baptidzo, to dip 'repeatedly.'' Is 
that its primary meaning ? Do you dip repeatedly when you 
baptize? But you can dip an object, and '''repeatedly^" and not 
put Si fourth part under the element. It is -yej^^/ indefinite. But 
you say a definition is of no value unless supported by texts in 
the languages the lexicons are defining. That is true — every 
word of it. But where do you, or this lexicographer, to whose 
work you anchor, find a place where baptidzo means to dip 
repeatedly f Nowhere on earth — nowhere! Then, "of ships, 
to c?^^ them." Will that do? He gives "it to draio water" — 
where has it that meaning ? l!^owhere. Sophocles, his next 
favorite gives — " to dip " first. Is that its primary meaning ? 
Why, we saw that Ingham, whose work the Doctor uses here 
and I have it too — the great Baptist of London, on this ques- 
tion, out of one hundred sixty-nine cases, renders it dip only 
onee. Conant, out of sixty-three consecutive cases, in which 
it is whelm forty -five times, " overwhelm" eight times, renders 
it dip, not once. A. Campbell never gives to dip. Leigh tells 
us "primarily it signifies any hind of washing, or immersion, 
etc." One gives overwhelm [ohruo) first — another, " I cover 
with water" — first — that is your crazy man Ewing. It is a 
good proof he was crazy, I admit. Scapula, Stephanus, etc., 
all give dnk [mer^o] as their first rendering. Parkhurst dip — 
Robinson " to dip in," occurs as the first classic meaning. 
Here, then, his lexicons give us this medley — " dip repeatedly^' 
as the primary meaning — assuming now with Dr. Graves, that 
they are treating of its primary meaning. iTo, no, cries every 
Baptist, if that be its meaning, Dm not baptized — I was not 
dipped repeatedly — only once. Call in another — Hedericus, 
Scapula, Stephanus — " sink." Horrors \ that won^t do — give 
us a better primary than that. Robinson, etc. — " dip in" — au^t 
you going to dip us out again, also ? That won't do, I dip 
my finger in that drop of water on the board ; dip my pen in 
ink; no covering, burying; no envelopment here; all is in 
doubt; we want more certainty than that. Others; 1st. Edi- 
tion of Wahl, Leigh, etc., wash', others, overwhelm; not one 
yet suits for a primary. Ah, Ewing has it — " cover with 
water ; " but, he is crazy ! Alas ! for primary from lexicons ! 



Mode of Baptism. 201 

You see all the lexicons utterly fail to support immerse as a 
primary meaning. If they had done so they would have been 
false, for it is not a primary as we demonstrated from its earliest 
use — ^it never being used for immerse till in Polybius — in the 
decay of the Greek language. We demonstrated it from the 
greatest immersion sources — when Conant out of sixty-three 
consecutive occurrences — p. 43 to 84 — renders it im'merse only 
ten times, overwhelm fifty- three times. If then, its most 
devoted friends can do no more than this^ and show fifty-three 
occasions where it is affusion — the element coming on the object 
afi waves leaping upon ships — dashed against them by the 
wind and throwing showers upon them — when they make such 
a showing for the prevailing and current meaning, what becomes 
oi primary even in Dr. Graves' sense of primary? Hence, 
Passow tells us of baptidzo ''Generally, to besprinkle {uber- 
giessen) to pour upon, to overwhelm," — {uberschutten^ etc.) 
Alas for immerse as a primary ! Hence, if Dr. Graves is cor- 
rect in either position, then not a Baptist here is Scripturally 
baptized, save those who went from us. 

As to the authorities, he may quote fifty to favor his views, 
and seven-tenths of them sustain ours, while we can quote 
twice as many more that destroy his position, aside from the 
record of lexicons and versions. All the array of authors 
often quoted — Witsius, Tarretinus, BuxtorfF, Vossius, Wall, 
Koanoel, Tholuck, Olshausen, Ebrard, Havernick, Eossen- 
muller, Lightfoot, Clarke, Beza, Stier, Hengstenberg, Baum- 
garten — all support us — their name is legion. 

As to Blackstone — we say that the true intent and meaning 
of him is, that first you study the meaning of the word in the 
given authority, and if it cannot thus be determined, next 
after looking into any other book on the same or Undred sub- 
ject, look into contemporary writers on same subject or kindred, 
and that is legitimate aid. Any way, whether B. said so or 
not, that is the right way — deny it if you dare. Are you not 
even running clear ofi* into dark age literature — into lexicons 
never designed to explain ]SI"ew Testament Greek at all, to 
determine New Testament usage? Have not Baptists ran- 
sacked Homer, Plutarch, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo and Tatius 



2 02 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

to settle a Bible usage, hardly pausing to notice the Bible 
itself? ^ow when we fail to agree on what the Greek text 
means, what should be the next best help — the best aid? Cer- 
tainl}', all the world of scholars and all immersionists always held 
since they heard of Syriac^ that oldest, purest, most literal, most 
faithful version — " made," says Judd, '' by men who spoke both 
languages — men most competent — by those who understood 
and spoke both languages precisely as the sacred writers [ the 
apostles ] themselves understood and spoke them." So says Dr. 
Judd. Dr. Graves endorsed thsit— published it to the world in 
book form to aid the Baptist cause. To what next best au- 
thority, then, could we appeal? Our Greek lexicons — all on 
our side,— all sustaining affusion are with us. All Hebrew 
lexicography is with us. All the classics are with us. Au- 
thorities are with us. But it hurts him worst that the grand 
old Syriac is with us — ay, and so squarely. Rain baptizing, 
tears baptizing couches, baptizing Christ's feet— ay, it must 
be silenced, for this Peshito, like the Bard's Duncan — " like a 
naked, new-born babe, striding the blasts, or heaven's cheru- 
bim horsed upon the sightless courier of the wind," will fill 
the land with rebellion against the reign of water over the 
minds of the people. It musthe silenced. And Jesus himself 
interprets the mode of baptism — that hurts. He — " in his native 
Syro-Chaldee," as A. Campbell calls it, calls admitted affusion 
■ — a light sprinkle— baptism- — " My feet hath she baptized with 
her TEARS. 

Dr. Graves, in speech 8th, says : " Does Turretine sustain 
Elder D ?" Turretine uses almost word for word the same 
language of Witsius, and gives the same examples. He be- 
lieves John immersed. He says baptidzo also means to 
sprinkle {adspergo, profundo) and that the 3,000, on Pentecost, 
Paul, Lydia, the 5,000, Acts iv, were all baptized by sprink- 
ling. But as he uses almost verbatim Witsius' words, we 
give them : 

"Hermann Witsius has been paraded by the immersionists as a 
special favorite. They often begin their Ust with his great name. 
Campbell quotes him as sustaining their views. I hold his work in my 
hands, the "De CEconomia Foederum Dei," etc., Hermanni Witsi, 
MDCLXXXV. It is quite venerable—nearly two hundred years old. In 



Mode of Baptism. 203 

book iv, lib. 4, ch, 16, § 13, 14, he discusses this question : "Whether by 
immersion or also by pouring water out of a vase, or sprinkling, was the 
rite of baptism administered. He admits that "it cannot be denied but 
that bapto and haptidzo may mean to sink {mergere)^ and to moisten or 
dip." But he says, § 14, p. 672 (de Baptismo), "Yet it is not to be sup- 
posed that immersion is necessary to baptism, since it may be accom- 
plished by pouring or sprinkling — ut perfusione vel aspersioneJ^ After 
explaining further, he says — and I will render it literally, as I only have 
the Latin copy : "It is more probable that the thi'ee thousand who were 
baptized in one day. Acts ii, 41, were perfused (poured on) or sprinkled 
with water than that they were immersed. For it is not likely that the 
men engaged in the preaching of the word as the apostles were, with 
ever so much pains, could immerse so many thousands. Neither is it 
credible that Cornelius, and Lydia, and those who were baptized in their 
own private houses, had baptisteries at hand, in which they could be 
totally immersed. Vossius adduces- examples of pouring from antiquity, 
Disput. 1, in his treatise on baptism, etc. 2. It is admitted that baptid- 
zeln may properly signify to sink, yet also it takes the more general sig- 
nification of washing in any way whatsoever, as for example Luke ix, 38, 
etc. 3. The thing signified by baptism is set forth both in the Old and 
New Testament by the words pour and sprmA;Ze. See Isa. xliv, 3, con- 
cerning pouring; Isa. lii, 15; Ezek. xxxvi, 25; Heb. xii, 24; 1 Pet. i, 2, 
on sprinkling." 

Dr. G. asks, ''Does Dr. A. Clarke sustain his (D's) position ?'^ 
"Does Beza?" "Does Lightfoot?" He makes me say thai 
Witsius, Beza, etc., etc., sustain me in the "assertion that 
haptidzo means primarily and properly to sprinkle." I said 
nothing of the kind. I did say and showed that all the old 
school traced sprinkle from wash- — refuted their theory. I 
showed that the facts compelled all of them to state that hap- 
tidzo applied to affusions. That they held it meant to sprinkle, 
but accounted for it on unscientific grounds, as the immer- 
sionists do. But he expresses astonishment, and thinks I 
risk my reputation as a scholar. l!Tow, 

1. What are our positions? Dr. G. is to prove that haptidzo 
ALWAYS implies immersion — never sprinkle or pour, I am to 
refute it. N^ow let us quote those authors he names as sus- 
taining him. 

Ed. Robinson: ^^ Baptidzo . . In Hellenistic Geeek, and in reference 
to the rite of baptism . . expressed not always immersion, but the more 
general idea of ablution or affusion.'''' — Gr. Lex., sub voce. He then 
shows that all the facts and ancient excavated baptisteries, etc, prove 
that it was by affusion. 



2 04 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



n 



Baumgarten, one among the ablest commentators of Europe, says : 
The baptism of Saul followed immediately the receiving of his sight. . . 
Upon callmg upon that holy name, his body . . is baptized . . by means 
of the water j^oz^rec? wpon him." — Acts ix, 1-36. Vol. i, 238, 239. 

"He ordered all those who had received the Holy Spirit, to be baptized 
with water.'''' — Acts x, 47. 

" With a part of the same water" used in washing the apostles, "the 
prison keeper and all his were baptized . . without the dipping of the 
whole body, in the open, running water." — Acts xvi, 11-40. Vol ii, 134, 

OiiSHAUSEN, one of the greatest and best commentators of any age, and 
the most impartial and profound, says on John iii, 25-27: ''The dispute 
was on baptism — Katharismos, equivalent to haptism^a {baptism.).'" 
Mark vh, 4: "Ablutions of all sorts, among the rest those apphcable to 
the priest (Ex. xxix, 4; 18, sq. with Heb. ix, 10), were common among 
the Jews. Baptismos is here, as in Heb. ix, 10, ablution, washing gener- 
ally ; Jdinai here, couches on which the ancients were wont to recline at 
nieals." Here he held that the legal sprinklings of John iii, 25-27; of 
the priests, Exodus xxix, 4, etc., were the "diverse baptisms" of Paul, 
Heb. ix, 10. That the couches of dining were baptized aij the Jews did — 
by afiiision. Again : 

On Acts ii, he considers the three thousand were baptized by sprinkling. 
Vol. iv, 383: "The difficulty can only be removed by supposing that 
they already employed mere sprinkling,^'' etc. 

Lig-htfoot's Commentarj^ is only for the learned, like the above, 
written in Latin. That he holds the highest rank of scholarship, is ad- 
mitted by all: "The word, therefore baptismous (washing), apphed to all 
these (brazen vessels, beds, etc. — Mark vii, 4), properly, and strictly is not 
to be taken of dipping or plunging [itahcs his], but, in respect of some 
things, of washing only, and, in respect of others, sprinkling only." — 
Horae Heb. et Tal., tom. ii, 419. 

Stier: " Baptidzo occurs frequently in the sense of mere washing." 
He supposes, at times, they may have been "dipped," where, otherwise, 
baptism would be administered by sprinlding, as probably with the 
thousands on the day of Pentecost. 

He is inferior to no commentator — one of the greatest and most volumi- 
nous. — "Leben Jesu," vol. vii, 303, note. 

Wesley: The immersionists have been misquoting Wesley, Adam 
Clarke, and Watson, for years, especially the two former, just as they do 
Witsius, Beza, and the rest. But Wesley is quoted as favoring their idea 
as against ours, else why quote him? Here is Weslej^'s note on Mark 
vii, 4: " Washing of cups and pots and brazen vessels and couches — the 
Greek word (baptisms) (i. e. baptizmous — baptidzo) means indifferently 
either washing or sprinkling." 

On Matt, iii, 6: Wesley says, in his notes: "Such prodigious numbers 
oould hardly be baptized by immerging their whole bodies under water ; 



Mode of Baptism. 205 

nor can we think they were provided with change of raiment for it, 
which was scarce practicable for such vast multitudes." He then urges 
that they must have been baptized by affusion. 

Geo. Hill: ''Both sprinkling and immersion are implied in the word 
haptidzo, both are used in the religious ceremonies of the Jews." — "Lec- 
tures on Divinity, 659." 

A. Clarke : "In what form baptism was originally administered, hsts 
been deemed a subject worthy of serious dispute. Were the people dipped 
or sprinkled? for it is certain bapto and baptidzo mean both."— On Matt, 
iii, 6. 

Bloomfield, Gr. Test., Mark vii, 4. "This is best explained, 'unless 
they wash their bodies,' in opposition to the washing of the hands before 
mentioned, in which, however, is not implied immersion. Heb. vi, 2, 
"Always in the sense of washing," here "as a general term referring both 
to the Jewish and Christian baptisms." Heb. ix, 10, '■'• Bap denotes those 
ceremonial ablutions of various sorts, some respecting the priests, others 
tlie people at large, detailed in Leviticus and Numbers." 

Acts viii, 38, . . "Philip seems to have taken up water with his hands 
luid poured it copiously on the Eunuch's head." 

Alford, Gr. Test., Mark vii, 4, '■'■ Baptiso7itai [h^^iize) themselves; 
but probably not the washing of their whole bodies ;" v. 8, "The baptismoi 
as applied to klinoi (couches at meals) were certainly not immersions but 
wrinklings or affusions of water." 

On Acts ii, 41, Alford holds that the 8,000 were sprinkled. 

Luke xi, 38, " Did not imply necessary immersion of the whole body, 
for it was only the hands which the Pharisees washed before meat." 

Fairbairn: "The diverse evidently points to the several uses of 

water, such as we know to have actually existed under the law, sprink- 
lings, washings, bathings. 

Here you see we are snstained completely and the Doctor 
routed. 

Beza says baptidzo means also to moisten (madefacere) and 
wash. "What he means by his wash and moisten, he shows on 
Acts i, 5 — '' baptized with water — with the Spirit. He saj^s 
of the water: "The other is spoken ('baptized with water') 
of water poured {aquce efusoe) upon the people." Does this 
sustain the Doctor, or me? Beza was the best Greek critic 
of the 16th century. 

The Doctor quotes Vattel on Laws of ITations, 8th speech, 
and urges that notification must take place before a change in 
law and custom is admissable. 



2o6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

1. But we showed that sprinkle is the primary meaning of 
baptidzo. By primary, Havernick, Fairbairn, Jahn, G-esenius, 
etc. — all critics and Webster, tell tis is meant the original 
meaning, affixed to the word by those who invented it — first 
used it. 

2. We showed that dip is no meaning of baptidzo, and im- 
merse a rare one by two proofs. 1. The whole immersion 
body of writers. 2. By an appeal to "the ultimate authori- 
ties." 3. We find that the lexicons nowhere furnish a text to 
support immerse earlier than Polybius. Hence immerse is a 
developed, late meaning. 4. We demonstrated by all 
philology — by the science of language — that immerse is the 
late, the derived meaning. Hence, Yattel's law destroys the 
Doctor. — [ Time out.^ 



Mode of Baptism. 



207 



DR. GRAVES' TENTH SPEECH. 

The Use of Baptidzo by Classic Greek Authors. 

Mr. President: — I shall now examine the meaning of 
baptdizo as used by Greek authors before, in the age of, and 
after Christ. Let it be borne in mind tiiat when we appeal to 
Greek authors we appeal to the highest authority known to 
scholars. It is higher authority than lexicons. It is where 
lexicographers go to find the meanings they give in their lex- 
icons. It is the supreme court by which the meaning of 
words is irreversibly decided. It must be admitted by all 
sensible men that the Greeks knew their own language. In 
what signification, then, did they invariably use baptidzo^ in its 
physical or literal sense? 

I repeat, to keep distinctly before you, the law of interpreta- 
tion by which we have agreed to be governed, viz., the 
^'primary or literal meaning is the only true meaning, and we 
must, in every instance, use it unless the context forbids." 
Now, I am here to prove that the primary or literal meaning 
of baptidzo^ at the time it was selected by the Holy Spirit — as it 
was for ages and ever before, as it has been ever since — was 
"to immerse," "to dip," or a kindred meaning. 

These exhaust the use of the word in Greek literature. 
Dr. Conant's translation of these examples have not been 
questioned by any scholar, if so, I have not heard of it. 

I shall select my examples from Dr. ConmiVs Baptidzein, the 
most valuable contribution made to our baptismal literature in 
any age. He has made it a part of the study of a lifetime to 
gather from his own reading, and every instance of the use of 
baptize in, by Greek writers whose works are extant. 

The first example I will introduce is 

EXAMPLE 4. 

From Aristotle, who was born three hundred and eighty- 
four years before Christ. 
"They say that the Phoenicians who inhabit tlie so-called Gadira, sail- 



2oS The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ing four days outside of the Pillars of Hercules with an east- wind, came 
to certain desert places full of rushes and sea-weed ; wtiich, when it is 
ebb-tide, are not— baptlzesthai — immersed, baptized, but when it is 
floodtide are overflowed." — Aristotle, concerning Wonderful Reports, 136. 

What is the evident ineaniDg of the term in this place, 

sprinkled, poured, or immersed? You have heard Elder 

Ditzler affirm emphatically a full half score of times, that hay- 

tidzo W2is neYev used to denote immersion before Polybius; 

that it meant sprinkle before his day. But Aristotle was born 

one hundred and seventj^-nine years before Polybius ! 

Mr. President, the verb haiHidzo never meant to sprinkle, nor 
can he produce the shadow of authority to sustain such a 
statement, and I challenge him, to do so. 

EXAMPLE 6. 

My next shall be Polybius himself. 

" Pol jbiiis, History, book XXXIV, c. 3, 7. In his description of the 
manner of taking the sword-fish (with an iron-headed spear or harpoon), 
he says : ^\nd even if the spear falls into the sea, it is not lost ; for it is com- 
pacted of both oak and pme, so that when the oaken part haptizomenon — 
is immersed, baptized by the weight, the rest is buoyed up and easily 
recovered.' " 

EXAMPLE 7. 

'■'■Ibid. HI, ch. 72, 4. Speaking of the passage of the Roman army, 
under the Consul Tiberius, through the river Tebia, which had been 
swollen by hea\'3' rains, he says : ' They passed through with difficulty, 
the foot-soldiers — baptizomenoi — immersed, as far as to the breasts.' '■ 

Can the word be translated in either of these two instances 
otherwise than immersed? Are sprinkled or poured admis- 
sible? Evidently not. The context demands immersion. 

exaeple 11. 

My next author is Strabo, who was born sixty years before 

Christ. 

''Sti'abo's Greography, book XIV, ch. 3, 9. 'Alexander happening to be 
there at the stormy season, and accustomed to trust for the most part to 
fortune, set forward before the sweU subsided ; and they marched the 
whole day in water — mechri omphoZou haptizomenon — immersed, (bap- 
tized) as far as the waist.' " 

Can it possibly mean anything else than immersion here ? 

example 15. 

Diodorus, who ^vrote sixty to thirty years before Christ, in his His. Lib. 



Mode of Baptism. ' 209 

book XI, ch. 18, says: '' The comniander of the fleet, leading on the line, 
and first joining battle, was slain after a brilliant conflict; and liis ship 
being submerged (baptized) confusion seized the fleet of the barbarians." 

JJoes it mean that the commander's ship was only sprinkled 
with a little water herj, or wholly immersed? Mark what he 
will make of this case. 

Having shown its use ages before and in the time of Christ, 
for all Grreek writers vet discovered from the earliest agfe until 
the Christian Era use baptidzo in the same sense as these I 
have given, I will examine a few w^ho wrote in the days of the 
apostles and after, while the Greek continued to be a spoken 
hmguage. 

Josephus, a learned Jew, familiar with the Greek language, 
was born thirty-seven years after Christ. 

EXAMPLE 16. 

In his antiquities. Book xv, ch. 3, 3, describing the murder 
of the boy Aristobulus, who (by Herod's command) was 
drowned by his companions in a swimming bath, he says: 

' ' Continually pressing down and immersing [baptizing] him while 
swimming, as if in sport, they did not desist till they had entkely suffo- 
cated him." 

Here is a clear case of frequent immersions and no death 
from the first. My opponent, who boasts that he never makes 
a mistake as to facts, has asserted in your hearing that "no 
ease can be found in classic Greek where a single immersion 
of a living person did not result in death;" that it is used in- 
variably in the sense of drown — sinking to the bottom and re- 
maining there. If the first immersion sufiiced to drown the 
boy, why did they repeat it continually ? Does not this dis- 
prove his assertion? If not, take 

EXAMPLE 156. 

Folyoenus* /Stratagems, book IV, ch. 2, 6. The device by which Phihp 
King of the Macedon, while exercising in the wresthng-school with 
Menegetes the pancratiast,t evaded the importunities of his soldiers, who 
liad gathered around clamoring for their pay. 

" Philip, not having it, came forward streaming with sweat, covered 
with dust, and smiling on them said: You say justly, fellow-soldiers, 



* About the middle of the second century after Christ. 
tThe name for an expert in both wrestling and boxing. 
14 



2IO The Great Carrollton Debate. 

but indeed, for this very purpose I am myself now anointed against the 
barbarian, in order that I may many times over repay you thanks. Say- 
ing this, and clapping his hands, he ran through the midst and threw 
himself into the swimming-bath ; and the Macedonians laughed. Philip 
did not give over dipping (baptizestg) in a match with the pancra- 
tiast, and sprinkling water in the face, until the soldiers wearied out, dis- 
persed. 

This play was the Dipping-match, it was a mutual dipping 

of each other — certatim immergo. Dr. Conant describes it in a 

note thus : 

"This was the dipping match, or game of dipping each other; each party 
striving to prove his su^Derior sti'ength and agility by putting the other 
under the water, and also by splashing it in his face {I- sprinkling water in 
ikeface^) till he was deprived of breath." 

isTow, here were repeated immersions, " clear under the 
water," with the sprinkling of water into the face added; hun- 
dreds of immersions did not destroy life. 

EXAMPLE 22. 

Jewish War, book UL., ch. x, 9. He says of the Jews, in 

describing their contest with the Roman soldiers on the sea of 

Gallilee : 

"And when they ventured to come near, they suffered harm before 
they could inflict any, and were submerged [baptized] along with their 
vessels, .... and those of the submerged [baptized] soldiers who raised 
their heads, either a missile reached, or a vessel overtook." 

If the mere baptizing of a living person destroys life, how, 
then, could these submerged soldiers ever raise their heads 
out of the water? Could dead men do it? 

Once more. 

EXAMPLE 30. 

Hippocrates, on Epidemics, book V. Describing the respiration of a 
patient, alfected with inflammation and swelling of the throat [Cynache], 
and oppression about the heart, he says: "And she breathed, as persons 
breathe after having been immersed, [baptized], and emitted a loud 
sound from the chest, like the so-called ventriloquist." 

If no living person was ever immersed and survived, how 
could this writer say that the patient breathed like one "after 
having been immersed?" If Eld. Ditzler's assertion is true, 
no man ever did breath after having been immersed. He 
makes no mistakes as to facts, he says, what do you say ? 

How, now, about his bold assertion that he has repeated all 



Mode of Baptism.. 



211 



3ver the South, and so often since the beginning of this de- 
oate, and that has been received by so many as settling this 
baptismal question against the Baptists ? ! 
There is another case, 

EXAMPLE 59. 

In Polybius, Hist, book V, ch. xlvii, 2. Speaking of a body of cavalry 
sent by Molon to attack Xenoetas, in a position where he was partly pro- 
tected by the river Tigris, and partly by marshes and pools, he says : 
"-Who, coming into near proximity with the forces of Xenoetas, through 
ignorance of the localities required no enemy, but themselves by them- 
selves immersed [baptized] and sinking in the pools, were aU useless, and 
many of them also perished." 

These soldiers were all immersed in mud and water; and all 
were rendered useless, but only some perished; why not all, 
if Eld. Ditzler's assertion is true, L e., " that no living person 
was ever spoken of as baptized, in classic Greek, and sur 
vived?" 

My eye falls upon yet another. 

EXAMPLE 65. 

Plutarch, in his work, Gryllas, VII, says of Agamemnon, King of the 
Greeks, on his way to Troy: "Then bravely — haptizion eis ten Coparda 
limnen — plunging, [baptizing] himself into the lake Copais, that there he 
might extinguish his love, and be freed from desire." 

I wish my opponent to answer two questions. 

1. According to his own rule laid down in the debate with 
Eld. Wilkes, did you not say that eis with the accusative im- 
plied entrance within— z. e., an immersion into water, and 
have we not eis with the accusative here, and was not King 
Agamemnon wholly immersed into the lake ? 

2. Did he or did he not survive and go on to the Trojan 
war after this ? 

Mark if he will answer these. Where, now, is his boasted 
and oft-repeated assertion, in the face of these clear examples, 
that no man can find an example in classic Greek where a 
living being was ever immersed and survived ? I have fully 
disproved his assertion by these half dozen examples, while 
one was sufficient. What will his unsupported assertions 
amount to after this? 

While my first aim has been to establish the use of baptidzo 



212 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

in classic Greek, I have overthrown his strong position 
against Baptists at the same time. I have yet time to read a 
few more authors. 

I wish also to call attention to the Greek text, which is 
translated — sprinkling water in his face, it is not rainomenos 
ton prosopon — raino followed by a direct object without a 
preposition, sprinkling the /ace, which is an impossibity; but 
sprinkling water, kata prosopon^ in or against the face," which 
also sustains my canon. 

Homeric Allegories, ch. 9. 

EXAMPLE 71. 

The writer explains the ground of the allegory [as he calls it] of Neptune 
freeing Mars from Vulcan, thus : ''Since the mass of iron, drawn red- 
hot from the furnace, is plunged [baptized] in water ; and the fiery glow, 
by its own natm-e quenched with water, ceases." 

Will my opponent presume to say that the mass of red-hot 
iron was here cooled by sprinkling water upon it? We have 
here baptidzo with the dative without the preposition [hudato 
baptizetai) as we have in Luke, the dative of element, or an- 
swering to the question "wherein." If baptidzo mesius to 
sprinkle here, then was the red-hot mass of iron sprinkled 
into the water, and not the water upon the iron. He must 
change the text or translate it as Conant does. 

Another case just in point. 

EXAMPLE 86. 

^Esopic Fables; fable of the Man and the Fox. "A certain man, hav- 
ing a grudge against a fox for certain mischief done by her, after getting 
her into his power contrived a long time how to punish her ; and dipping 
[baptizing] tow in oil, he bound it to her tail and set fire to it." 

We have, in this example, the phrase ''kai stupeion elaio bap- 
tisaSy'^ the dative of element with the verb baptidzo as we had 
in Luke iii, 16. Will Eld. Ditzler translate this " sprinkled 
the tow with the oil," or " poured the tow with the oil " as he 
so stoutly insisted the similar phrase in Luke should be ren- 
dered ? He would be sent to the foot of his class in any 
third-rate grammar school of the land. His theory com- 
pels him to translate this " sprinkled the oil on the tow," but 
cannot make the text read so — elaio is here manifestly the 
dative of element, and must be translated in oil. He cannot 



.:;:; Mode of Baptism. - ' - 213 

parse Lis translation by the rules of any Greek grammar ever 
written. He has shown a disposition to treat my canon 
lightly; here is an excellent opportunity to explode it if he 
can do it. I challenge him to the contest; now let him accept 
my challenge, or admit my position. 

I leave, here, the examination of classic Greek writers, 
having given you a few out of the eighty-six similar ones 
given by Conant of its literal use, and with no other have we 
to do; and I distinctly challenge Eld. Ditzler to produce a 
single example from the writings of any Greek author in 
which baptidzo occurs in its literal sense having any other 
meaning than " to im.merse," " to dip," " to plunge," or a 
kindred meaning. This is the time and the place to do it. 
If he is unable to do it, he signally fails to support his 
^^ sprinkling," and leaves the argument with me. 

[Replication.! . 

I shall confine myself to but a few points in my opponent's 
last speech. ' ' ' ■ ■ - 

1. The mo^t of what he said was for present effect with the 
audience, or for the unthinking and credulous who may read 
this discussion. All thinking men, and for such alone I speak, 
know that bold assertions, and vehement assertions, unsup- 
ported by reliable evidence, amount to nothing. He claims that 
all the lexicons, and all classic writers, and all critics and all 
the learned men, are with him and against immersion ! I will 
test these statements, each and several, when I reach tlie lexi- 
cons to-morrow, in the due course of the debate, and as for 
his "grand old Syriac Version," we will see of what force it is., 
and whose cause that force is in favor of— when I reach my 
argument from Ancient Versions. Elder D. can afford, it 
seems, to repeat himself daily, and in each speech, over and 
over, but I cannot, nor do I intend he shall force me to repeat 
more than I think will give due etiaphasis to some facts. 
As often as he claims all, or any lexicon in support of sprinkling 
-as a proper' or primary rneaning o\' haptidzo, I can properbr, 
<a6 now, challenge him to produce one that does so, giving us 
■iliQ -text of hij5 author^ He kas jjot, after so ikany ehallenge-% 



214 'T^E Great Carrollton Debate. 

produced one, he will not, for he cannot. We are now exam- 
ining the use of baptidzo by Greek writers, and I can properly 
challenge him to produce one who manifestly uses hiptidzo in 
its physical, literal signification, in the sense of to sprinkle 
upon. He has not done so — he cannot, and will not, but 
seek to mislead you from the main to side issues, as he has 
from the first. 

But to the special points. 

1. He says that the commission is in figurative language, 
" very much so ! " Xo sentence is figurative unless it con- 
tains a figure of speech. Xo man ever found a figure in the 
commission — he cannot do so, and therefore he mistakes as 
to a plain matter of fact here. 

The Savior clearly told them whom to baptize — autous — 
them — i. e., the disciples — they made in obeying his command 
to matheteusate — make disciples. What figure here? That, lit- 
erally, you cannot sprinkle or jpour a living being or a solid 
substance, but that whenever a noun denoting a person, or 
indivisible object, the preposition on or upon must be expressed 
or understood^ 

2. That he affects to despise my canon, and attempts to 
escape its force by ridicule — it is A. Campbell's — it is ridicu- 
lous — a " thin conceit"— -surrendered long ago by immer- 
sionists in Kentucky, etc. All this sort of talk, with no 
evidence produced to overthrow it, amounts to nothing, but is 
proof that he feels the force of the canon. 

The principle on which this canon is based, has been 

known to all scholars in all ages, for it inheres in the very 

signification of the words themselves. Dr. Geo. Campbell,. 

who wrote before A. Campbell was born, recognized it, in this 

statement : 

" The word baptism, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to 
dip, to plunge, to immerse. Had baptidzo been employed in the same sense 
of raino, to sprinkle ( which as as far as I know it never is, in any u^ 
sacred or classical), the expression would doubtless have been^ ' I ESTDEED BAP- 
TIZE WATER UPOX YOU . " 

I am, perhaps bringing it out, illustrating and making it 
more prominent in this debate than any one before me has done^ 
and it is because it is a putting the matter in a way that the coiii= 



Mode of Baptism. 



215 



men people can understand it, and with this argument alone 
they can successfully meet my opponent or any other sprinkler, 
and refute them. 

I suppose it was surrendered by the immersionists of Ken- 
tucky the day they surrendered the State to Elder D., furled 
their banners, and laid down their arms at his victorious feet 
— never before. I wish him to know, that Tennessee immer- 
sionists have not surrendered it, nor are they ashamed of it. 

To his profound remark that "there are verbs that take two 
accusatives," I bow with the utmost deference; but what it 
has to do in refuting my cause, I do not imagine ! Does he 
mean that the verbs in question — sprinkle, to pour — take two 
accusatives without a preposition expressed or understood? 
Of what pertinency his remark, if he did not mean this — or if 
he did? 

I, nor any other man, ever held that nouns without a prepo- 
sition conld not be the direct objects of the verbs — to wet, to 
moisten, to stain, to color, etc., — but I do deny that any verb, 
whose proper meaning is to sprinkle or to pour, means 
primarily to color, to stain — or that any verb denoting to scat- 
ter, to sprinkle, to difluse, to pour, can literally and without 
an ellipse, take an indivisible noun — as a person — for its direct 
object without a preposition being expressed or understood. 

He has referred to passages in the Old and ISTew Testaments, 
to sustain him, and, therefore, I propose here to examine 
them, and to show you that the Holy Spirit, in inditing the 
Word of God, honors my canon. 

1. The first place in which sprinkle is used, taking a person 
dB a direct object, is in Lev. xiv, 7: "And he shall sprinkle, al, 
upon him that is cleansed," etc. 

2. The next place is Lev. xiv, 51: "And he shall sprinkle, 
al, upon the house seven times." Our English translators did 
not translate this preposition, but the Holy Spirit put it there, 
in the original — for He was giving a law, and it must be ex- 
pressed in literal, not figurative, terms. 

3. The third time it is used is in Lev. xvi, 14 : "And he 
shall take the blood of the bullock and sprinkle with his finger, 



2i6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

oZ, upon the mercy- seat eastward," etc. In this case, there 
could have been no mistake had it read, sprinkle the mercy- 
seat, and according to the rules governing figures, an ellipsis 
might have been employed, but the Holy Spirit was giving a 
law. - . - ; 

4. The fourth case occurs in lumbers xix, 18: "Take his 
sop and dip it in the water, and sprinkle, al, upon the tent, 
and, a^, upon him that touched a bone," etc. 

5. The fifth, is the 13th verse: " The water of separation 
was not sprinkled, a^, upon him." ■ - 

6. The sixth instance is in the 19th verse : " Shall sprinkle 
it, al, on him." 

These show that the preposition following such verbs, be- 
fore indivisible objects, is expressed in the Hebrew generally^ 
as it is in the Syriac and Greek versions of it. He instances 
one case in I^ew Testament Greek, Heb. ix, 10 : " He sprinkled 
the book and the people," etc., which is clearly an example of 
an ellipsis, but if he will but open his "grand old Syriac^" he 
will to his amazement find al, upon the book, as it is in the 
Hebrew to which it refers. 

What thouo-h Oris-en and Basil did sav the altar was im- 
mersed, they manifestly used the term tropically, indicating 
the effect, rather than the act by which it was produced. Bat 
by what right does he say that David baptized his couch with 
his tears, and that Mary baptized the Savior's feet with her 
tears? The Holy Spirit does not say so, in either place, nor 
does He use, in either case, a verb that is used in connection 
with baptism! It is brecho — z'o i^e^— in both cases! He has 
no right under heaven to translate that word baptize, and I 
must say I scorn the motive that prompts him to use it in 
these cases. - : - 

On the Definition of Words. 

I may as well here as in my next argument, say what T have 
to say touching the true and real definitions of words. I am 
convinced that my opponent has no clear idea of what consti- 
tutes the real or literal definition of words, -or, ho has the pa&t 



Mode of Baptism. 217 

three days intentionally sought to confuse your minds as to 
what they are. 

He has, as you all know, in every speech he has made, as in 
his last, blended and confounded the figurative with the literal 
and proper meanings of verbs. He has, in every speech, 
quoted the remotest figurative meanings of verbs, given by his 
lexicons, and stoutly asserted that these were as truly real 
meanings as those given as the primary significations. You 
have just heard him claim that ^' to soak in liquor," " to in- 
toxicate," " to drown," ''to puzzle or perplex with a multi- 
tude of questions," are each and all, real definitions of haj)tidzo! 
I affirm, most emphatically, that they are not proper defini- 
tions at all, and he ought to know it, or knowing it, he cares 
little for his reputation for candor or scholarship, to stand 
here and affirm they are. 

I am determined that you shall not be confused and mislead 
by his assertions, unless you are more than willing to be. 

What is the definition of a definition ? In other words, 
what are you to understand b}^ a iproiper definition of words ? 
The Rules of Interpreting language, which, at the outstart, 
we mutually endorsed, tell us what it is. It is not any ideal 
or fanciful meaning that poets or orators may give it. Nor 
can a figure of speech be considered a real definition of any 
term. 

What say the Rules ? 

I. Every word must have some specific idea or notion, which we call 
meaning. Were not this so, words would be meaningless and useless. 

II. The literal, which is also called the grammatical sense of a word, i.<? 
the sense so connected with it that it is first in order, and is spontaneously 
presented to the mind as soon as the sound is heard. This meaning is 
always (save in one lexicon, i. e., Stokius'') placed first in the lexicons, and 
is known as i^Ae primary meaning. 

III. -'The primary or literai. meaning is the only true one." 
—Ernesti, p. H. 

Ernesti quotes Morus in support of this : 

. "There can be no certainty at all in respect to the intei'pretation of any 
passage, unless a kind of necessity compels usto affix a particular sense to 
a word ; which sense, as I have before said, must be one-; and unless ther© 



2i8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

are special reasons for a tropical (or secondarj^) meaning, it must be the 
literal Sense," i. e.> the primaiy. 

I therefore lay down this canon, strange, though it may 
sound to my opponent, and though never before developed in 
discussion. 

From THE PHYSICAL USE OF WORDS ALONE, AND NOT FROM 
THEIR FIGURATIVE, CAN WE LEARN THEIR REAL AND PROPER 
MEANINGS. 

To claim that the figurative use and meanings of words are 
their proper and true ones, would be to confound all language, 
and any sentence or law could be construed to mean what the 
fancy of men might suggest. 

Let us notice how secondary meanings originate by figures t)f 
speech. 

1. By Synecdoche, in which a part is put for the whole, or 
vice versa — e.g., "The baptism of John," Acts xix, 14, put 
for the preaching or ministry of John — but is preaching or 
ministry, therefore, a definition of baptism ? 

2. By Metonomy, in which one thing is put for another — as 
effect, for cause, the container for that which is contained, etc., 
etc. — e. g., when speaking of a person we say " baptized in 
tears," immersed in ills and woes, overwhelmed with taxation, 
buried, immersed in his books, etc. But who will say that to 
cry is a proper signification of to baptize f or to tax heavily, of 
the verb overwhelm ? or to study diligently, of the verb 
immerse f 

3. By Hyperbole, which expresses 'much more or less than 
the truth — David "bathed his couch with his tears" — caused 
his "bed to swim with tears" — the frog dyed all the lake with 
his blood — he was dipped or immersed in dew; he baptized 
the nations in blood and carnage. 

If then, we may not learn the real meaning of words from 
their tropical uses, then their figurative or metaphorical defi- 
nitions, which are always placed as a secondary meaning in 
the lexicons, are not the real and literal meanings, and we 
should not look for the real and true among the figurative 
uses of a word. 



Mode of Baptism. 219 

Kow, by this canon I shall be governed in this discussion. 
I charge my opponent before the world and the republic of 
letters, that he has, from his first to his last speech, claimed 
and asserted that the figurative definitions of baptidzo in the 
lexicons are, equally with the primary, real definitions, and, 
judging from his practice, superior, and to be preferred to the 
primary, for he uses them altogether to the neglect of the 
primary. 

I emphatically deny that any of the meanings of baptidzo 
that he has brought forward in this debate are real meanings 
of the verb at all ; and in the estimation of all scholars and 
intelligent thinking persons he should surrender the whole 
question, unless he comes to the front with the primary or 
real definitions of the verb. 

I was expecting that my opponent would have conducted 
this debate on his part upon true, scientific, logical and 
philological principles, but thus far he persistently and 
proudly refuses to recognize them, and even charges such men 
as Prof. Moses Stuart, of Andover, the recognized scholar of 
the Congregationalists, in his day, with "impiricism ! " His 
speeches and replies are marked with the utter want of method, 
induction or logic. — \^Time out 



2 20 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S TENTH REPLY. 

On Dr. Conant's statements that he had exhausted the use of 
bapiidzo &c., in the Greek — given every occurrence of it in all 
the ancient Greek writers up to the 10th century &e., we refer 
you to his omission of it in Origen's baptism of the altar. 
Basil's account of it, Clemens Alexandrinus' words — "the 
Jews daily baptize on a couch," all yet to be detailed, and 
Eusebius' citation from Clemens Alex, where John, the Apos- 
tle, met the backslider, who was "baptized, as it were, a second 
time with tears." These are vef}^ important omissions, all being 
G-reek writers of the early centuries of the Christian era, 190, 
215, etc. 

But Dr. G. thinks baptidzo does mean to dip — applies to such 
act as they perform in baptizing. "We emphatically assert that 
not a place in ancient Greek — classic Greek, can be found 
where baptidzo applies to any such act, or means to dip. He 
cites examples out of Conant, 22, 26, 25, 39, 69, 70, 86, to show 
that living objects are immersed yet do hot perish, as well as 
that Baptidzo is to dip, put under and withdraw immediately. 
Now let us examine these, the strongest supports they have, 
and if they fail to give dip, his cause is gone forever, while if 
they did, it shows it is the rarest of all meanings. 

I take them as they come in Conant, as given by Dr. G. 
He cited ]N"o. 2 first, I believe. The ship here he says ''being 
submerged, [baptidzomena — baptized) becamefilled with sea- water 
and with co7z/w5io?i." Whence arose the confusion ? Was it 
not the confusion of men on the ship baptized ? Now if the 
ship was " submerged," wholly under the water, how could 
men remain on it and exhibit confusion ? Evidently the ship 
was not submerged, but only baptized with waves leaping upon 
it. And if they were "filled with sea-water," did they not sink 
— ^go down forever? We freely admit that in later Greek, 
Polybius, Plutarch, &c., it sometime.^ means to sink — {immergo). 



Mode of Baptism. 



221 



N"o. vessel, ship ever snrvived on earth at sea,^ becoming ^^jilled 
with sea-water." This, then, perfectly sustains our position. 

His second case is in late, iron age Greek, Josephus, where 
on the sea of Galilee, a very tempestuous little sea, the Jews 
"were submerged (baptized) along with their vessels." I^ow 
if their vessels weiitdown^ were submerged^ they perished, man 
and vessels. He adds: "And those of the 5w6mer^e<i (baptized) 
who raised their heads, either a missile reached or a vessel 
overtook," Conant's rendering p. 10. But Conant's rendering 
is a false rendering. He renders it as if it was an active verb, 
indicative mood — they raised their heads after being "sub- 
merged." It is most outrageous. It is a participle — tous ana- 
jieuontas, the heads, it implies the elevation of all the part of 
a man's shoulder as well as head, that a swimmer has above 
water — "their heads being elevated." Hence it reads.* The 
heads [and of course part of the shoulder] of those baptized 
being elevated, etc." I^ow "the heads of those submerged" 
cannot be elevated above the water when the whole is submerged. 
So his test texts refute his position. No. 25 is in doubt as to 
correctness of the Greek, hence can't decide a doubtful point, 
since two doubts do not clear away a third doubt. "The sol- 
diers baptized themselves (ek) out of great wine cups, etc." So 
far from this being dip in, it is baptize out of (ek pithon megalon.) 
They became drunk, baptized, as Plato and others use baptidzo 
for "make drunk;" they did so \_ek'\ out of, not in the "wine- 
jars, etc." There is no dip here. Soldiers do not hesitate to 
drink out of cups or wine-jars with the mouth we know. In 
Aristophanes it occurs once. It is metaphorically for aspers- 
ing, abusing, pouring abuse upon the stewards, baptizing them 
with abuse. We use asperse, foul aspersion, torrent of abuse, 
pour abuse upon, for this very act here described by baptidzo. 
He fails still to even jar our position. 

He next introduces example 39, p. 18 of Conant. 'f And 
already becoming immersed \_baptized'] and wanting little of 
sinking, some of the pirates at first attempted to leave, and 
get aboard of their own bark." A " storm " up — pirates seize 
a vessel — it, Conant says, "becoming immersed" — that is 
mnk-—'' heeoxmng sunk" — baptized. Kow how could the ves- 



2 22 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

sel be clear under, as you immerse men, when it adds : ^' and 
wanting little of sinking — being immersed f^ It reads thus: 
'' But being already baptized \i. e. with waves leaping upon 
it — affusion'] and wanting little of being immersed — more literally 
— wanting little of immersing — sinking — some of the pirates," 
etc. Here then, 1. though baptized, the vessel was not im- 
mersed. 2. The vessel was baptized, yet '' some of the pirates 
— not all — were attempting to leave." !^ow can that be said of 
a vessel '' already immersed." If all the vessel was under water, 
liow could some of the pirates be attempting to leave it? They 
would be either under water with it, else left floating when it 
had sunk. But, 3. It does not say all or a part had deserted 
the vessel. '^ At first " — while it was baptized — "some attempted 
to leave — by little boats no doubt — and to get aboard their own 
bark." Thus all the facts show, and the very words show that 
baptidzo here does not immerse the vessel. It " still wanted 
a little of immersing — Jcatadunai" 1^. 63, p. 33, comes nearer 
than any Greek sentence in iron age Greek of supporting 
dip as a meaning of baptidzo. If it does, it is the only place 
in all the Greek known to man where it means dip — the very 
meaning you want — Carson saying it "always means to 
dip," and A. Campbell, "wherever you find bap — the stem 
syllable — there you find dip." 

1st. Then, there is no reliability in the Greek text of Jose- 
phus here. It has been tampered with badly by immersionist 
editors for centuries. See Conant, 33 even. 

2d. It reads very differently 07i this very point in different edi- 
tions. Hence all is in doubt about it. The truest reading, the 
recognized one is: "and baptizing a little of the ashes of it — 
the burnt heifer — in water — that is, pouring a little of the 
ashes into a fountain of water (in aqiiam-baptisantes) "^ "^ ^ eis 
paegaen, they sprinkled," etc. There is no dip here, it is 
rather the reverse; a little of the ashes was cast or poured 
into water. Conant adopts a false reading: ^^ suggested by 
Boifrer, on !N"um. xix," where he thinks there was " an error 
in copying." In a word, a couple of immersionists make a 
verse of Greek of their own, that is, etymologicall}^, and 
properly contrary to every use of it known, and by it support 



Mode of Baptism. 22 



J 



dip^ as if Josephus were the author! And that is the best they 
can do for their mode of baptism I 

The other two cases are square against them. The one (70 ) 
in Conant, baptize the Egyptian blister plaster, now substituted 
by a pessary vastly different in material, shape and purpose, 
in or with •' the milk of a woman," ( es gala gunaikos.) Case 
71 — the mass of iron drawn by the smiths red-hot from the 
furnace, is ha;ptized with water — huda.tiabaptidzetai. 'Now, 

1st. It is a red-hot mass of iron from the furnace. Such is 
never plunged into water, it would throw every drop out of 
the tub and scald the smiths. 

2d. It is a mass of red-hot iron, so large that smiths [plural 
in Greek] have to handle it. Such a "mass drawn red-hot 
out of the furnace'- is never plunged into water. 

3d. It reads baptized [^hudati~\ with wsiter, dative of instru- 
ment, not eis hudor, into or in water. 

4th. Smiths always sprinkle or lightly pour on water to 
temper down a large mass of hot iron. " The fiery glow " 
thus " quenched z^iYA water \^hudati, agSLin] ceases." There is 
JVo dip in baptidzo; not at all. 

One more text he adduced — 86, p. 42 in Conant. 

" It is a fictitious work, ttie 'writer and date unknown.' ^^— Conant. 

Conant reads, " dipping tow in oil." No^Y the fox's tail was 

not dipped in oil [Mr. D. here said fox's tail for tow, tied to 

its tail — a lapsus linguae'] but elaio baptizas, was baptized with 

oil Evidently it was no dipping. Any way, it is not allowable 

to take one extremely doubtful text as to meaning, to settle 

another that is in doubt. It was simply baptized with oil — 

dative of instrument, no en even, though it would not be 

proof, as even en eloio often occurs, many times, where the oil 

was poured. So the learned gentleman has exhausted his skill 

after he took days and nights to prepare his assault on my first 

hour's speech, and failed utterly, even to raise a clever smoke 

or cloud of dust. 

On Soak.— Mell and Sophocles both use it for baptidzo. Mell is a Bap- 
tist author in Ga., and President of a college, I believe. Conant explains 
it by drench and ^^souse.^^ Gale by " laid under." — Wall, 11, 75. 



2 24 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Once more let me explain to you the difference between my 
position and the old school of authors. 

1. !N"o one of them ever attempted a scientific treatment of 
this question. They took it up where they found it at the 
close of the dark ages. 

2. ^ot one of them ever made a table of the occurrences of 
this word for any given space of time, not to say of its earlier 
use and that of its root, bapto, or of chronologic order as to 
its meanings, hence they all begin and end their citations on it 
from the latest ages of Greek, reversing every principle of 
science and philology. This course we repudiate. 

3. N'early all authorities claimed by the Doctor relied — 
those Pedobaptists we mean — relied on two things as settling 
its philology. 1st. That Proselyte Baptism by immersion, as 
seen in Maimonides, twelfth century after Christ, existed 
before and in Paul's day, and hence, (2.) that Paul alludes to 
it Pom. vi, 4, as an immersion. Instead of treating the ques- 
tion scientifically, they assume that to be a definition as Dr. 
Graves does. By the same course, and far more consistently, 
we can assume that seven authorities define it j)our, the 
four Evangelists, the Harbinger, Peter and Christ. This is 
ignoring science and philology. We believe it shows how it 
was understood then, where they expressly call this pouring 
of the Spirit baptizing; but we have never called it in on 
treating of the philology of the word. 

4. All these authorities sustain sprinkle. They hold it and 
pouring to have been the main modes in apostolic history. 
Vossius, Suicer, Witsius, Beza, all of whose works I have; 
all these old philologists; all copying each other with hardly 
a variation through centuries; all moving in each other's 
tracks, all hold that baptidzo applied to sprinklings and pour- 
ings. Take the strongest of them, Beza and Suicer, who have 
been quoted even as out and out immersionists. Here is Beza, 
whose old folio work you see in my hand, over three hundred 
years old — Suicer's folio. Vol. i. Also Dr. Graves' quotation 
from Judd, makes Beza depose thus : " Beza, after stating 
that baptidzo properly means to immerse, and never to wash, 
except as a consequence of immersion [he says no such thing] 



Mode of Baptism. 225 

says, Nee alia est, etc., nor does the signification of amad, which 
the Syrians use for baptize differ at all from this. — See Beza's 
Arraat. in Marc. 7, 4, etc." 

Here is a gross perversion and misstatement of the language 
and meaning of Beza both. As to his words : 

1. Beza's words are, " Neither indeed does baptidzein signify 
to wash except by consequence. For properly it is to im- 
merse," and refers to Plutarch, etc., and refers to Matthew 
iii, 11, for his fuller statement, where Judd alone finds his 
statement on amad not here. There Beza says: ''But bap- 
tidzein means to wet, moisten, to plunge." Then he says:— 
"Neither is there any other meaning to amad, etc." He then 
says it answers to tabhal rather than rachats, that is pri- 
marily. Yet he renders it lavo, wash, in a number of places. 
This, then, is Beza's meaning : 

1. baptidzo, in classic usage, is to moisten, plunge. Its root, 
bapto, to dye, immersing. 

2. It means to wash, therefore, as a consequence. But, 

3. It then came to apply to washings by pouring, etc. 

PROOF. 

On Acts i, 5, " John indeed baptized with water," etc., Beza 
says : " there is a double antithesis, when, from the one 
[Father] emanated the Holy Spirit, the other [this antithesis] 
IS OF THE WATER POURED BY JoHN and of the Holy Spirit fall- 
ing upon the apostles, which mission of the Holy Spirit, and 
POURING [of the water] is called baptismJ' This shows what 
Beza meant. He refers to Acts x, and other places where the 
same practice was followed. 

WoLFius.— The great John A. Wolfius, curae Philo. et crit. 
35 Ed., 1739, Vol. 1. p. 658 in Luk. xi, 38, says : 

" And this is one place in the New Testament where the verb 
(baptidzo) means washing, done by sprinkling— -as^emon^ 
factamJ^ To this agrees Deylingius. 

SuiCER* is held bv eminent scholars as the ablest and most 
valuable lexicon [Thesaurus] ever written for the interpreta- 

* Thesaurus Eccles. E. Pat. Graccis, 2 vols, folio, 1728. 
15 



2 26 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tion of l^ew Testament words. So thinks Dr. Smith. He is 
always quoted for immersion by immersionists. After telling 
us the ancient lexicons, Glosses, etc., define bapto to moisten, 
wet, he giving it immerse, etc., he thus defines fxijptidzo. " It is 
more than to swim — less than immerse" — i. e., dunai — sink] 
which, he thinks always has the effect \_dunai~\ of sending to 
the bottom. t Then: "But because anything is accustomed 
to be plunged in water that it may be washed or cleansed; 
hence it occurs as tahal in the Hebrew, which the LXX 
translate hajptidzo 2. Kings, v. 14, and is taken for rachats, 
which is to wash. By metathesis to baptidzein is, used for the 
same \^lavare — wash,^ in Greek, as Judith xii. 8, [7 Sarihc] 
xxxiv. 30 ; Luke xi, 38. " Then B. 2, p. 633, he says, showing 
his idea of \_lavare'] wash, "the thing signified is represented 
by immersion or sprinkling."^ 

H. WiTSius. — De Ocoen. Foederum Dei, 1685 : He admits John and 
the disciples practiced immersion in John's day, ordinarily. He says 
bapto and haptidzo m.eaii to sink, moisten or dip, yet (continues he), it is 
not to be supposed that immersion is thus necessary to baptism, since it 
may be accomplished by pouring or sprinkling — {ut perfusione vel aspersione 
rite peragi non possit — as if it could not be performed by perfusion or 
sprinkling,) p. 672. He then urges that the 8000 on Pentecost, Comehus, 
etc., were all baptized, "were perfused or sprinkled with the water — aqua 
pjerfusos vel adspersos, quam mersosesse." While he grants "baptidzo 
properlj^ [classically] means to sink, yet it is used more generally for every 
kind of purification. 

LiGHTFOOT. — "The word, therefore, iap2!is77iows,^ppliedto all these (peo- 
ple, brazen vessels, beds, etc., Mark vii, 4,) properly and strictly is not to 
be taken of dipping ox plunging [itahcs Ais], but, in respect of some things, 
of washing only, and in respect of others, of speinkling only. "=-fibra€ 
Heb. et Tal, ii, 419. 

Wesley's Notes, Mark vii, 4. — "The Greek word {haptismous) means 
indifferently either washing or sprinkling." He thinks all those baptized 
by John were by afiiision. See on Matt, iii, 6, and that Heb. x, 22, alluded 
to ancient manner of baptizing by sprinkling. See on Col. ii, 12. 

A. Clarke. — "Were the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is certain 
hapto and haptidzo mean both." On Matt, iii, 6. 



tSee Vol. 1, folio. Vossius' views we exposed, where Drs. Conant, 
Carson, etc., utterly crush this conceit 

X Quae per immersionem aut aspersionem. 



Mode of Baptism. , 227 

Later Critics for the Learned. 

Stibr. — ^^Baptidzo occurs frequently in the sense of mere washing." He 
supposes at times they may have been dipped, when otherwise it would te 
by sprinkling, as probably on the day of Pentecost. Lehen Jesu^ viii. 303, 
note. 

l!^ow here you see how those old philologists talked. We 
put in Stier as a living and great commentator of Germany in 
the present age, second to none. 

Olshausen has the same in substance. Baumgarten, Tho- 
LUCK, Ebrard, Fairbairn, Alford, all, and many others, too 
numerous to name, of the greatest scholars of the present 
age, all support this. 

lN"ow the point where we differ is, these old philologists 
knew they all held that baptidzo applied to affusions. They 
saw that. They saw it was the popular mode in Apostolic 
times. The point is, they accounted for the philosophy of the 
word's meaning from the old empirical standpoint, we go 
solely by the scientific method. We hope we are now well 
understood. We have shown the age of the Syriac version ; 
did in our last reply. Those facts stand in the record, and 
will never be met. Let Dr. Graves answer Dr. Graves and 
Dr. Judd, Walton, Davidson, Giles, etc., etc., as well as the 
whole voice and testimony of the Syriac church. 

If the sacred writers had desired to say dip, a thorough dip, 
they had two words, eupto, kolumbao. If immerse, they had, 
buthidzo, pontidzo, enduo, katabontidzo, kafaduno ; out of these 
it was easy to select. Yet never do they use them. The im- 
mersion, dark age Greeks used several of those words often, 
over and again when they wished to say immerse. Again we 
have the old canon, sprinkle, "scatter in drops" theory. Well 
that is the best he can do to keep afloat. I ought not to com- 
plain. We have seen that Moses sprinkled the book, the 
tabernacle, the people. David prayed, in Greek, Latin and 
Syriac (Ps. xli, 9), it reads : "Sprinkle me." Solomon : " I have 
sprinkled my bed with myrrh," perfumed in James. Herodotus 
says the priests commanded the ipeo'pleWantidzeim, to sprinkle 
themselves." Pindar often, as all Greeks, uses it the same 
way — but no, says Dr. G. it is not so, his theory requires that 



2 28 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

lame crutcb. Philology, lexicons, authorities, classics, versions, 
fathers, all, all desert him — his only support is crazy Ewing 
and this crotchet. Why verbs compounded, perfundo, consper- 
go, take a direct accusative, perfuse, and mean to stain, bespat- 
ter, spot, &c., and defile. The good Doctor thinks we were in 
a blunder, at least as to Wesley. I^o, no, we made no blunder, 
not at all. No mistake yet. N'ow sir, we appeal to this audi- 
ence, to our immersion friends, what have they to stand upon ? 
You see we have all the facts, all the authorities, all science 
and the Bible with us, what can you do? — [Time out 



Mode of Baptism. 229 



DR. GRAVES' ELEVENTH SPEECH. 

Argument From the Earliest Greek Fathers. 

Mr. President: — I will now return to my argument from 
the Greek Fathers. 

Cyril, bishop (pastor) of Jerusalem, born after Christ 316, 
says: 

Instruction III. On Baptism, xii. '' For as Jesus^ assuming the sins of 
the worlds died, that having slain sin he migh«i raise thee up in righteous- 
ness ; so also thou, going down into the water, and in a manner buried in 
the waters as he in the rock, art raised again, walking in newness of life." 

The same writer, Initiation 11. On the Ceremonies of Baptism. "O 
strange and wonderful transaction ! Not truly did we die, nor were we 
truly buried, nor truly crucified did we rise again ; but the imitation was 
in a similitude, while the salvation was in truth. Christ was really cru- 
cified, and really was buried, and truly rose again ; and all these things 
have been graciously imparted to us, that sharing his sutferings in imita- 
tion, we might in truth obtain salvation." 

The same writer, Initiation V. 4, "'After these things, ye were led by the 
hand to the sacred font of the divine immersion (baptism), as Christ from 
the cross to the prepared tomb. And each was asked, if he believes in the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spmt. And ye pro- 
fessed the saving profession, and sank down thrice into the water, and 
again came up. And there^ by a symbol., shadowing forth the burial of 
Christ, " etc. 

The same writer, Instruction VIII, On the Holy Spirit 11. 14. ^ 'For the 
Lord saith : 'Ye shall be immersed (baptized) in the Holy Spirit not many 
days after this." I^ot in part the grace,* but aU sufficing the power I For 
as he who sinks down in the water and is immersed (baptized) is sur- 
rounded on all sides by the waters, so also they were completely immersed 
(baptized) by the Spirit. " 

Though the word baptidzo is not here used in these examples, 
the act of baptism is unmistakably declared by another term, 
and this helps us to understand how these Fathers understood 
those passages we have commented upon, "buried with him 
in baptism/^ and " the baptism in the Spirit" 

Basil, the Great, born three hundred and thirty years after 

Christ, says : 
On the Holy Spiritj ch. XV. 35. "Imitating the burial of Christ by the 



230 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

immersion (baptism) for the bodies of those immersed (baptized) are as 14 
were bm'ied in the water." 

E'ow, substitute either sprinkling or pouring for baptismatos 
here and see if it makes sense. "Imitating the burial of Christ 
by the sprinkling, by the pouring!'^ Read on. "For the bodies 
of those sprinkled, poured (which you cannot do) are as it were 
en thaptetai too hudati [buried, sepulchred] in the water." Im- 
mersion alone will satisfy the sense, and, therefore, it is the 
literal meaning of baptidzo. 

The same writer, in the same passage, a few lines below. 
"The water presents the image of death, receiving the body as in 
a tomb." ' 

The same writer, On Baptism, book I. eh. 1, 4, "Which we seem to 
have covenanted by the immersion (baptism) in water, professing to have 
been crucified with, to have died with, to have been bm'ied with, and so 
forth, as it is written." 

All can see what the early Fathers understood the design 

of baptism to be, viz., a ^rq/e55iow on the part of the subject 

that he had been crueified with Christ, died with Christ, buried 

and risen with him to a new life; and so they imitate these acts 

in their baptism. 

Chrysostom, born A. D. 349, says : 

Cbmment on I Cor. Discom'seXL, I. "For to be immersed (baptized) 
and to sink down, then to emerge, is a symbol of the descent into the mi- 
der-world, and of the ascent from thence. Therefore Paul calls the im- 
mersion (baptism) the tomb, saying: "We were buried, therefore, with 
him by the immersion (baptism) into death." 

The same writer. On the Gospel of John, Discourse XXV. "Divine 
symbols are therein celebrated, burial and deadness, and resmTection and 
hfe. And all these take place together ; for when we s ink down in th© 
waters as in a kind of tomb, the new man comes up again." 

'No one can mistake the meaning of these Greek Fathers 

touching the design of Christian baptism or their use of the 

verb baptidzo . They never used it in the sense of "to sprinkle," 

or " to pour,*' never. Let my opponent produce one instance, 

just one. 

Testimony of the Latin Fathers. 

Tertullian, who was born about fifty years after the death 
of John, thus speaks of the ac^ which determines what they un- 
derstood the meaning of baptidzo to be. 



Mode of Baptism. 231 

Tertullian, On the Eesurrection of the Body, chapter 47. 
Quoting Rom. vi, 3, says: 

^^An ignOratia quod quvcunque in Christum Jesum tincti sumus, in mortem ejus 
tincti sumusV^ 

" Know ye not that so many of us as were immersed into Christ Jesus, 
were immersed into his death?" 

I wish you all to notice in what sense Tertullian, as did all 
the ecclesiastical fathers, used the Latin verb tingo^ when allud- 
ing to baptism, and as they used it, all lexicons, when defining 
baptidzo by tingo, mean the selfsame thing, " to immerse," " to 
dip." You will see that Elder Ditzler will translate it to 
" sprinkle " to make out his case. Anciently, and when refer- 
ing to the Christian rite, it never means ^' sprinkle," as each 
one can see from the passages in which it stands; it corresponds 
with the Graek verb bapto, which primarily always means " to 
dip," secondarily, " to dye," since dyeing was done by dipping. 

The same writer, a few lines below: 

^'Per simulacrum enim moriimur in haptismate^ sed per veritatem resurgimus in 
earne^ sicut et Christus." 

"For by an image we die in baptism, but we truly rfee in the flesh, as 
did also Christ.". 

The same writer, against Praxeas, chapter 26. Speaking of the Savior's 
<;ommand, in Mat. xxviii. 19, he says : 

^^Ut novissime mandans ut tinguerent in Patrem, et Filium et Spiritum sanctum/^ 

"And last of all, commanding that they should immerse into the Father, 
:and the Son, and the Holy Spirit." 

The same writer, On the Soldier's Crown, chapter 3. 

^^Dthine ter niergHam.ur.^ amplius aiiquid respondente quatn Dom,inus in 
■evangelio deterTninavity 

"Then we are three times immersed, answering somewhat more than the 
Lo' d prescribed in the gospel J^ 

Mark here, that while TeTtuUian admits they had com- 
menced to use three immersions, he himself declares that it is 
without Scriptural authority, and he is the first one who mentions 
trine immersion. 

The same writer, On Public Shows, chapter 4. 

"Ci<7M aquam ingressi chrisiianam fidem in legis suae verba projit^mur.''^ 

"When, entering into the water, we profess theChristian faith, in words 
of his own law." 

All will see that thev not onlv entered into the water, but in this 
age all were required to profess their personal faith in Christ 



2^2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



■o 



Ambrose was born about 300 years after Christ, and he thns 
alludes to the act of baptism : 

Ambrose, On the Sacraments, book ii. chapter 7. 

'•'■ Interrogai'us es: Credis7ieinDeum Paireyn omnipotentem? Diseisii^ Credo; ei 
■mersisti, hoe est, sepultus es." 

"Thou wast asked: Dost thou beheve in God the Father ahrdghty? 
Thou saidst, I beheve ; and thou didst sink down, that is, wast buried." 
The same Work, book iii. chapter i. 1. 

" Hesierno die de fonte disputavifmus, cvjus species veluti qvaedam sepulchri 
forma est; in quern eredentes in Patretn ei FiHu'm et Spiritum sanciitm, Teeipimur 
et denie/rgimur et sii'^gimus, hoc est, resusciiam.ur.^^ 

"Yesterday we discoursed respecting the font, whose appearance is, as 
it were, a form of sepulchre ; into which, beheving in the Father, and the 
Son, and the Holy Spirit, we are received and submerged, and rise, that 
is, are restored to life." 

The same Work, book iii. chapter i, 2. 

" Srgo resuTrectio quid est, nid quando de vfiorte ad vitavi resurgiimtsf Sic ergo 
et in baptismaie, quoniam similitude mortis est, sine duhio dum 'mergis et resurgis^ 
similiiudo fit resurrectionis. ' ' 

"What then is a resurrection, except when we rise again from death ta 
life? So, then, also in baptism, since there is a simihtude of death, with- 
out doubt, w^hilst thou dost sink doi\Ti and rise again, there is a similitude 
of the r esmTection. ' ' 

Jerome, born A. D., 331 says, in his Comment, on the Epistle 
to the Ephesians, book ii. chapter 4, on chapter iv. 5 : 

" mt ter ynergimur, ut Trinitatis unwm appareat sacr amentum. ^^ 

"And thrice we are immersed, that there may appear one sacrament of 
the Trinity." 

Alcuin, born A. D., 785, to the brethren at Lyons, in epistle 
xc. speaking of the Christian rite of baptism, he says : 

^^Ut vero cogjioscatis hvjus sacraiissimi mysttrii significatione, juxta sancto^ 
rum Pairum intelligentiom ei iiaiuta ecclesiastica^ vestrae charitaii eadem sacra-- 
menta catholica inter pretatione ostendamj^ 

"That you may know the things signified by this most sacred mystery,, 
according to the understanding of the holy fathers and the statutes of the 
church, I wiU show to your love the same sacraments, with the cathohc 
interpretation." 

After a full description and explanation of the preliminary 

ceremonies, he adds: 

^^ Et sic in nomine sanctae Triniatis trina suhmersione haptizaiur.^^ 
"And so, in the nanie of the holy Trinity, he is baptized with a trin^ 
wbmersioa." 



Mode of Baptism. 233 

All can see that no other act than immersion will answer 
the design of baptism as observed by the church for the first 
eight centuries after Christ. 

No candid man can question how the church usually under- 
stood the term baptidzo in the commission ; as did the Greeks, 
so the Latins; all understood it to denote an immersion, or its 
equivalent. 

Replication. 

A few little things first before I forget them : 

1. If it was indeed true, which he takes so much time to 
assert, and closes each speech with — i. e., "that all the facts, 
all the authorities, all science, and the Bible, are with him ; " 
if this were true, would he not, at least, deign to bring some 
of them forward? I intreat him to state one, just one, under 
each head. I want something definite, tangible to reply to — this 
striking at thin air is tiresome. Bring forward just one passage 
in the New Testament referring to baptism in which there is a 
word that the Greeks ever used in the signification of to sprin- 
kle — the primary meaning of which is given, to sprinkle, in any 
Greek lexicon. This would be a delightful fact for his breth- 
ren to contemplate. Or let him produce one standard lexicon 
of the Greek language that gives either to sprinkle or to pour 
upon as the real primary and literal meaning of baptidzo. That 
would be refreshing indeed, and a thousand times better than 
my friend's bold assertions. Or, let him, now, while we are 
upon the subject, produce one Greek authority, in any age, 
who used baptidzo in the physical sense of to sprinkle or to 
pour. I doubt not that he could procure a million for the 
example, and be crowned wdth immortal glory by his friends. 

If he can do none of these important things, will he pro- 
duce a recognized standard authority in Germany or America 
who endorses the new-born philology, presented to be chris- 
tened in this discussion — i. e., that the first meanings given 
by the lexicographers of all languages are not the primary 
and literal — but the first definition ever given to a word in 
the ages of ages past is the only true primary, and is the 
meaning we should give the word to-day! 



234 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

That Elliptically, in English, and in other languages, to 
sprinkle and to pour do sometimes take an indivisible noun 
without a preposition expressed is true, and what I have 
said, but I do say that when not expressed, it must be under- 
stood. Every tyro in language knows this to be a fact, so 
that if my opponent should produce a dozen examples, instead 
of his two or three examples, which forsake him on examina- 
tion, they amount to nothing. 

David did indeed pray, " sprinkle me," but why did he stop 
short? The rest is with hyssop, "a hyssop branch dipped in 
the water of purification, and I shall be clean." Why would 
he not give you the whole verse? To sprinkle an object with 
fluid is something quite dift'erent from sprinkling that object 
itself. It is also true that Herodotus says the priests com- 
manded the people to sprinkle themselves. But why does he 
stop short again ? Sprinkle themselves with what ? Will he 
tell us? 

There never was a command given to people on this earth 
to sprinkle themselves with no other qualifying or explanatory 
words. It is with something, dust, ashes or fluid. This canon 
is no thin conceit of mine. It confronts him at every turn, 
and he can find no enchantment that will prevail against it, 
and I care not how often he alludes to it. I wish the people 
of this whole land to be thoroughly impressed with it. I will 
unite with him in submitting the question to the Presidents, 
and the Professors of languages in every college in the United 
States, and agree to abide by their decision. I will restate 
my position in the form of a universal rule of all languages. 

Before all nouns denoting persons or indivisible things, used 
as direct objects of the verbs, to sprinkle, to pour, etc., there 
must be the preposition, on or upon, expressed or under- 
stood. 

He brings forward several pedobaptists to testify as parti- 
sans, rather than scholars,, that they think, while it is true 
John, Christ and his disciples practiced immersion, yet it is 
not in all cases necessary, etc. But who told them it is not 
necessary? It- is a question of fact we are settling, and these 
very witnesses establish that ! 



Mode of Baptism. 235 

He so garbles the few authorities he produced in his last 
speech that it is impossible to determine what they do say. 
Wesley and A. Clarke wrote in English, why will he not 
quote full sentences from them ? 

That "Witsius is not fairly presented is evident from the 
few words of Latin Elder D. submits. For aught I know 
Witsius says, and he certainly is more likely to have said, after 
affirming as he does, that hajpto and baptidzo mean to dip, to 
immerse — (I have never seen where he says to moisten) that 
it is not to be supposed that immersion is thus necessary to 
baptism, since it may be accomplished by pouring or sprink- 
ling. Eld. D. quotes these words as implying this : '''ut perfu- 
sio7ie vel aspersione rite peraginonpossit,'' and translates it "as 
if it could not be performed by perfusion or sprinkling." 
The Latin as it stands does not read thus, ut neVer means "as if," 
but "that," "so that." Then it read, " so that" rite "with due 
religious observance — it cannot be performed by sprinkling or 
pouring !" I call for the whole paragraph in which the lan- 
guage is found, and unless produced will claim that Witsius 
says the very opposite of what my opponent represents him as 
saying. But again. 

Eld. D. makes him say that the 3,000 were baptized — aqua 
perfusos vel adspersos quam mersos esse — is all the Latin he gives 
and translates it, "were perfused or sprinkled with the 
water," but there is mersos esse which he does not pretend to 
translate ! How are we to decide what the author does say ? 
Suppose he does give it as his opinion that they were aspersed, 
it is only an opinion at best, and does not weaken my posi- 
tion after he has frankly confessed that the proper and 
literal meaning of baptidzo, is to dip, to immerse. Stuart and 
Anthon after stating this as scholars, yet as churchmen, they 
believed that sprinkling would answer. But who told them so, 
when Christ commanded to immerse ? 

Until Eld. Ditzler presents us with the Latin text of Wit- 
sius, I will suppose, with greater show of reason that he 
said, since the word haptidzo means only to immerse, if those 
in the day of Pentecost were baptized by affusion — they must 



236 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

have been so copioiiRly over poured or besprinkled with 
water, as to have been immersed in it. 

I will give the fuller testimony of these witnesses in my 
argument from the admission of learned Pedobaptists, when 
we shall see what Beza, and Wolfius and Suicer do say. 

I will now give a few minutes to reviewing his construc- 
tions of the examples from Greek authors, to prove two 
things. 

1. That baptidzo when used in its physical sense, by which 
I mean its literal, as opposed to its figurative, means only to 
dip, to immerse, overwhelm. 

2. That his repeated assertion that "in every instance in 
classic Greek where baptidzo puts a living being under water — 
clear under — it destroys." I will notice his statements in the 
order I have noted them. 

1. He intimates that Dr. Conant has not given every in- 
stance of the use of baptidzo in Greek authors — omitting those 
that were against his case. Now I suggest that the bare asser- 
tion of my opponent is not quite sufficient to impeach so 
honorable a scholar as Dr. Conant. There is not a Christian 
scholar in either hemisphere but that respects Dr. Conant, 
and believes him above deceit or trickery- 

If my opponent has found any not discovered by Dr. Co- 
nant and all scholars before his day, he would be profoundly 
thankful to Elder Ditzler to cite them, giving the work, chap- 
ter and page, where the example can be found, and this is the 
time and place where Elder Ditzler should have presented the 
quotations of the text in full, and his translation. His asser- 
tions and a few disconnected words and disjointed sentences, 
will not pass- — I will wait for them. 

2. I did not cite the example he mentions, at all; he in- 
dulges his fancy when he tells you what I said about this Ex.; 
but this case is a clear case of immersion, if he would only 
give it to you in full — " the ship being immersed by the waves," 
— submerged, immersed — "became filled with sea water, and 
confusion," etc., — and let him give the full text of the ex- 
amples. 



Mode of Baptism. 237 

You will observe, he takes no notice of my first example 
from Aristotle, where the land at ebb tide was not immersed, 
however much it was sprinkled by the spray of the sea, but 
at flood tide it was immersed — overflowed — buried under the 
water. 

l^OY does he notice my second, third, fourth or fifth — first 
five examples unnoticed! He does notice my seventh ( Co- 
nan t's 22.) by simply impeaching the translation of Conant — 
declaring it *' false "and " most outrageous." 

Now will every scholar and school-boy even decide between 
the fidelity and scholarship of the accused and the accuser. 
As this is a serious charge, that will be perpetuated so long as 
this discussion is read, I propose to examine it, and therefore 
give the full text : 

The same ivriter, Jewish War, book III, ch. 10, 9. He says of the Jews, 
in describing their contest with the Roman soldiers on the sea of Gahlee : 

"And when they ventured to come near, they suffered harm before 
they could inflict any, and were submerged (baptized) along with 
their vessels ; toon de baptisthentoon tons ananeuontas e belos ephthanen 
e schedla katelambane ; and those of the submerged (baptized) who 
raised their heads, either a missile reached or a vessel overtook." 

ITow, Elder D. very learnedly and critical^ informs us that 
'•^tous ananeuontas is a participle, [and he might have said in the 
indicative action and present tense,] and should be rendered 
their heads being elevated;" but Dr. Con ant was po ignorant as 
to render it as if it was an active verb, indicative mood, and 
exclaims ''most outrageous!" i^ow, every tyro in Greek, and 
every schoolboy ih this house who has committed the rules 
of his elementary grammar, should know how to translate 
participles, preceded by the definite article. I have had no 
opportunity to refer to a Greek grammar, but will venture to 
quote from memory, from the rule for rendering such phrases. 
"The definite article, before a participle, should be translated 
as a relative pronoun, and the participle should be rendered 
as a verb in the indicative of its own tense." 

Conant has precisely so rendered it. Mark it: "And those 
of the submerged tons who — ananenoutas — raised their heads'' — 
literally, swiw to the top. Elder- Ditzler, of course, never mot 
with this rule, and rcnllv did not know how it should be 



238 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

rendered. This is the kindest construction that can be placed 
upon his statement; but his boldness and recklessness in 
questioning the correctness of such a scholar as Dr. Conant is 
what appalls me. We pass this most disastrous attempt at a 
simple Greek criticism, to avoid the force of this clear exam- 
ple, with this conclusion, that Elder D.'s mere assertions, how- 
ever often or loudly made, no more than his translations, can 
be safely relied upon without careful examination. 

In this example, then, baptidzo did put the soldiers "clean 
under the water," with their vessels, and those swimming or 
rising to the surface, were so alive that it was necessary to 
dispatch them with weapons. 

Strange to say. Elder D. says I introduced Ex. 25 and 39 of 
Conant, cases which I never mentioned. He is repeating his 
debate with Mr. Wilkes I expect — he is not debating with me. 

He says I introduced example 63 ; he is again firing from 
some of his old notes at Mr. Wilkes or Brentz, and talk- 
ing wisely about the old iron age of Greek, as if that had any- 
thing to do with this question, and charging again that two 
Baptists, Conant and Bonfrer have made a verse and falsely 
attribute it to Josephus. All this may appear wonderful to 
his brethren, but scholars will have their own opinion of the 
modesty of the charge. 

Touching the Example 70 in Conant, he evidently yields. 
He does not translate baptidzo at all, giving only the transferred 
word baptidzo, and incorrectly renders it espergo, with milk, 
perverting the manifest meaning of the passage. 

Example 71. He meets with the simple assertion that 
smiths are never wont to cool red-hot iron by plunging it into 
a bath or tub of water, but always cool the hot iron by sprink- 
ling water upon it. I will refer this learned criticism to black- 
smiths everywhere. 

I know how the Latin smiths cooled their hot iron — or 

metals. I remember Virgil describes the Cyclops forging 

arms — 
" Alii stridentia tinguant c&ra lacu.''^ 

Others plunge the hissing brass in the lake. Will he trans- 
late this, sprinkled the hissing brass with the lake? Will he? 



Mode of Baptism. 239 

The ancient mode of cooling red hot metal is established. 

He meets Example 86, with Dr. Con ant's note, but what 
matters the date or the author, the force of baptidzo is mani- 
festly to immerse, to dip. 

My opponent, by the time he reached the 86 Example, 
evidently became so confused, that he could not, with the 
book, the text, and translation before him, distinguish between 
the tail and toe ! 

Conant neither says that the fox's toe was dipped in oil, 
nor that his tail was dipped in oil, and he exhausts his remain- 
ing strength, by explaining to us that the oil was poured upon 
the fox's tail, and not the tail dipped into the oil ! This is rather 
more than T can stand; you must excuse me for smiling. He 
will probably recover his ideas, and return to this, and all my 
examples in his next speech, so I will not press him further 
now. — I'ime out. 



240 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — As to the language of the 
Peshito, it is Syriac. It was the vernacular of Christ, and of 
his Apostles. The proofs of that are so abundant it would 
swell into a large volume. Dr. Gvaves says the Syriac church 
did not have a version [so early] because they had Greek! 
Why was not Peter detected by Jews of his Galilean dialect, 
which notoriously pronounced certain Aramaean or Syriac 
letters so different from the Jerusalem manner, just as English- 
men from Durham differ from Londoners, Yankees from 
Virginians in many words, that the Jews had many anecdotes 
on it, as Lightfoot shows us. Home and others also give us 
examples. Did not Josephus have to study Greek, and never 
did master its pronunciation because he began so late, and he 
so commanding a scholar? All the words in the N'ew Testa- 
ment preserved to us as used by Christ are of the Aramaean 
dialect or Syriac. Josephus tells how unpopular it was for 
any Jew to study Greek. All history agrees that Matthew 
was originally composed in what they called Hebrew, that is, 
a dialect of the Svriac. As for Alford, he did hold that it was 
in Syriac, but changed his opinion as he tells us. He may 
change back again yet. 

Martini, Francius, Ludovicus. Walton, and hosts of the 
greatest scholars and critics known, hold that what was written 
in Greek was at the same time thought in Syriac. Palfrey says 
the Peshito presents our Savior's discourses "essentially in 
the language in which they were originally pronounced." 
Francius: "Christ spoke and discussed in the Syriac lan- 
guage." Walton: "Whose vernacular language was Syriac." 
"Ludovicus, (author of a Syriac Lex., &c.) affirms that thr. 
true import of the phraseology of the ^ew Testament can 
scarcely be learned, except from the Syriac." Walton : " They 
conceived (says he) in Syriac that which they wrote in Greek." 
President Stiles, of Yale, says : " The greatest part of the Kew 



Mode of Baptism. 241 

Testament was originally written in Syriac, and not merely 
translated in the Apostolic age^ With him the Syriac Peshito 
is " of the same authority as the Greek." So we could con- 
tinue the list of the greatest of names for this old Apostolic 
work. It is only partisans, who, when it was supposed to 
favor thdT views, put it up in the Apostolic age, but now wish 
to run it as far off as possible, because so crushing, so disas- 
trous to their cause — only those now wish to cry out and tone 
down the value of the purest version by common consent that 
ever was made. People will know how to estimate that. 

I told you at the start the word for the baptism of the 
Savior was hrecho. To be sure it is. But when brecho, such a 
gentle sprinkle as that is translated baptize by the Apostolic 
Christians, and baptidzo (tabhal) in Hebrew is translated 
sprinkle; — I say when they translate sprinkle baptize and 
baptize, sprinkle, does it not utterly crush our opponent? 
The feebler the sprinkle the better for our side; for then it 
will meet those silly ministers, whom Wall so denounces, who 
put so little water on an infant's head. As for me, I always 
pour it on. 

Origen does not use baptidzo metaphorically. It is a plain, 
simple case. Four pitchers of water were poured on the 
altar and the wood. It was repeated three times. No such 
thing as a barrel existed then. The Hebrew word never 
means barrel. Every lexicon on earth, every version on earth 
renders it either pitcher or water-bucket. There was no over- 
whelm about it. If it was, it was no dip^ no plunge^ no immer- 
sion. Where is the dip here? But it was a plain, simple 
baptism. Foar pitchers of water were poured on. Origen 
and Basil use the word baptidzo^ baptize, where the Bible 
uses the word, poured on the water on the altar, &c. 

There is no getting around these facts. Both allude to the 
water as poured on. Basil names it pointedly. Hence there 
was no metaphor, it was baptism with water, the water poured 
on. They were Greeks; they called it baptizing. 

But the Doctor comes back feebly on perfundo, a compound. 
Now, the point there is decidedly against the Doctor; for this 
word now takes even an accusative, terminates or acts directly 
16 



242 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

on the object even — hence perfuse. It is used at times for 
wash in Ovid e.g., and for stain, "bathe," "wash," which 
meaning shows it terminates often, as baptidzo, on the object. 
When he brings the proof that Agamemnon actually dipped 
himself clear under the water, immersed himself, we will 
notice it further. He adduces no proof as yet, and on him 
lies that burden. 

The party breathed like one baptized. Why, does he not 
know that water thrown suddenly on one often quite takes 
the breath ? Again, if by baptized you mean immersed, no 
one can breathe who is immersed in your sense, totally under, 
sunk, unless he had a diving-bell. Who can breathe when 
immersed? 

You imply, has been immersed. It may allude simply to 
one standing immersed in water up to the waist, but surely 
110 one immersed breathes, that is immersed clear under. 

The Doctor gets wonderfully confused over Julianus, the 
learned father of the 4th century. I wonder not at this. The 
quotation is here in Beza, or Matt, iii, 6, 11. Bat Dr. G. 
thinks per/undo is to pour all over, or something of the kind. 
That would not help his cause. To pour water all over a 
man is not dip, immerse. But he is simply defining baptidzo. 
That is the point. "It means to sprinkle," says Julianus. 
'No father denied it. Perfando is the first word by which 
Stephanus, Schleusner, Stokius, Schrevellius, &c., define raino, 
the main Greek for sprinkle. It is oftener used for sprinkle 
by lexicographers and Fathers than adspergo or conspergo. But 
Tertullian used it. He uses adspergo a number of times in 
De Baptismo when treating of baptism, as well as mergo once, 
and tingo often. In De Anima cap. 51, he uses mergo, tingo, 
perfundo. 

The very men who use this term when they wish to say 
pour, use /i^6?z7, pour forth or pour upon, profiindo, and when 
copiousness is desired, they qualify by largeter or copiose. 
Thus do Schleusner, Stokius, Schaetgennius^, &c. Our battle- 
ments all stand yet, while the last ditch has been lost by the 
Doctor. But he insists the Eastern Church all baptize by 
dipping. That is a mistake. 



Mode of Baptism. 243 

1. It is not proof that it is the Bible mode were that so. 

2. They all use three dips when they dip at all, showing 
superstition, not Scripture, • 

3. It is not true as abundant testimony by various men 
traveling there to the contrary has been repeatedly published 
of late years. Gazes is a native Greek, lived and died at 
Athens, translated and studied in Europe, and his large lex- 
icon, (3 vol.) gives not only louo^ brecho, but epicunOj pour 
upon. He wrote in modern Greek on ancient Greek. So 
Kouma, native Greek, in his lexicon, gives "besprinkle" for 
baptidzo. 

We will now present some facts on the Eastern church and 
test what they believe. 

While we freely admit that the fathers immersed with a 
trine immersion, several facts must not be forgotten. 

1st. The very first time immersion appears in patristic 
literature, it is trme immersion, and always required 
" three immersions" " to accomplish the mystery of baptism." 
It was thus admitted one immersion was not baptism. 

2nd. The moment immersion appears in history it is 
admitted not to be by divine authority.* 

After this as well as in TertuJlian, they gave the most 
revolting and superstitious reasons for immersion, in that they 
claim a Divine and medical virtue for the baptismal water; 
that the Spirit of God hovering over the water, had impreg- 
nated it with a Divine power, with sanctifying grace, and 
hence the propriety of being touched on all parts by the grace- 
imparting water;. Hence, the mode as yet, had no claim, the 
importance of being washed all over, became a matter of 
great importance, and immersion being a more certain way 
of accomplishing this, it became the popular mode. This 
was fully expressed in a later day by Theophylact also — " he 
who simply receives the water [by affusion] is not wholly 
wetted [water, sprinkle, hugrainomenon] on ail places," 
(Conant, 110, Lou. Debate, 569). Tertullian says: "All 

* Ter mergitamnr, amplius, a liquid, respondentes quam Donninus in 
evangelic determinavit. Three times immersed answering somewhat 
more than the Lord commanded, &c. See Conant, 117, Lou. Deb, 459. 



244 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

waters therefore, * * do, after invocation of God, attain the 
sacramental power of sanctification. "^ ^ They imbibe, at the 
same time, the power of sanctifying," (De Eap. vol. 1, 232). 
Cyril : " If one desires to know why, through water * * the 
grace is given, let him take up the Divine Scriptures. * * 
For water is a great thing and the noblest of the four 
elements." John, of Damascus: "For from the beginning the 
Spirit moved upon the waters; and of old the Scripture tes- 
tifies to water, that it is cleansing," (Conant, 125, 126). 

Yet, with all Tertullian's superstition, he fully and explic- 
itly admits the validity of aspersion or perfusion as baptism, 
and puts it in evidence that the church did, not discussing 
the subject, however, for it never was discussed in early days, 
the false statements about I^ovatian to the contrary, notwith- 
standing. The question was raised about the baptism of the 
Apostles — when and where were they baptized? Let us now 
hear Tertullian. 

TERTULLIAN. 

1. He says that " what we have to labor for is, that it may 
be granted to us to attain that blessing ; for who will grant to 
you, a man of so faithless repentance, one single sprinkling of 
the water whatever?"* 

Again: "Others make the suggestion, forced enough 
clearly, that the Apostles then served j;he term of baptism 
when, in their little ship, they were sprinkled (adspersi) with 
the waves; that Peter also was {satis mersum) mersed enough 
he walked on the sea. It is, however, as I think, one thing when 
to be sprinkled \cidsj>ei'gi~\ as were the eleven, or intercepted by 
the violence of the sea [as was Peter]; another thing to be 
baptized in obedience to the discipline of religion. * * IN'ow, 
whether they were baptized in any manner whatever, or 
whether they continued to be unwashed to the end, &c."t 
Here note : 

1. He fully grants different ways or modes of baptizing. 

2. That had the Apostles voluntarily received the sprinkling 
of the spray upon them, it would have been baptism. 

3. This sprinkling was a ceremonial washing [^ai;o]. 

"^De Poeniten, c. vi. 
r De Bap. c. 12. 



Mode of Baptism. 245 

4. The first quotation shows that they often baptized by 
sprinkling. 

6. He uses adspergo, sprinkle, as being as complete a bap- 
tism as merge. 

6. In De Anima, he uses mersit for baptizing and "perfudit" 
Uli quos Menander ipse perfudit, cap. 51, those whom Menander 
himself sprinkled. 

As to amad and how the Syrians baptized, we read in an 
ancient council of the Syriac Church that the gender of the 
word was discussed, what form, as Semitic tongues have 
gender for verbs, and they say '• When he baptizes, even 
with the invocation of the holy Trinity, and with the ablu- 
tion of natural water, immersion or sprinkling, it is rot true 
baptism," " unless the proper word is used also." \_Bihliotheoa 
Orientalis, Romse, 1719, torn. iv. p. 50]. Again, "If when he 
baptizes he uses [that form of amad]^ for the present impera- 
tive, * * * immersion in natural water, washing or sprinkling, 
&c.," ibid, 

AMAD. 

We have an account in the earliest Syriac literature of 

Simeon Barsaboe, Bishop of Sileucia and Ctesiphon. "He 

was surnamed Bar Tsaboe, the Baptist; * * and indeed he 

baptizad his garments [feei^a] with the blood of his life."* 
Here a martyr, put to death, his own blood baptizes his body 

and garments, and he is called the Baptist therefrom. 

Again we read in ancient Syriac literature that they retail 
and record, and believed that " when Christ, the Lord, was 
baptized in Jordan, say Simon the prophet and John Zugbi, 
John the Baptist filled a little vessel with water that flowed 
from his sacred body, and preserved it until the day he was 
beheaded, when he delivered it into the custody of his disci- 
ple, John the Evangelist. To this same John they add, when 
Christ instituted the eucharistic supper, and distributed a part 
to each of the Apostles, he gave a double portion, the rest of 
which he took and delivered in the same way as the other, in 

*Biblioth, Orient, 1, 2, bhadhmo, etc., Lat, ipse uero animse suae vestas 
proprio cruoee tinxit. By-t.he-way, does tinxic here mean what Dr. G. in- 
sists it does ? 



246 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

a little water vessel. And, afterward, be poured into this 
same vessel the water which flowed from the side when hang- 
ing on the cross, * * * that was the leaven of baptism, for 
the Apostles divided this water, which they were to use as 
an element in administering baptism. "f 

Here, of course we know this to be a fiction, a tradition. 
But, 

1. It shows what they believed in the mode of baptism, viz : 
that Christ was baptized in the Jordan standing the water 
poured upon him, flowing down over his body. Hence, 

2. As amad expressed this^ it could not mean properly im- 
mersiouo 

3. The water being divided out, carried abroad as an ele- 
ment with which they believed the Apostles baptized, shows the 
Syriac Church did not regard [amad] baptism as immersion, 

Heuce^ we read again : 

4. " There are seven kinds of baptism recorded. 1. The 
well known baptism in common with us all, that is to say^ 
washing. 2. Legal baptism, that is, purification according to 
the law of Moses. 3. Baptism according to the tradition 
of the Elders,, viz: the washing of cups, brazen vessels^ 
couches, etc. 4. The baptism of John. 5. Baptism of Christy 
etc. 6. The baptism of blood — I have a baptism to be bap- 
tized with.* 7. The baptism of tears. J Here the Syriac 
fathers, as the Greek fathers, held that. 

1. The legal sprinklings for purification were baptisms. 

2. That the blood shed in martyrdom baptized the person. 
It was therefore held that if one embraced Christ and failed 
of baptism^ if he was put to death, his blood streaming out 
upon him baptized him. 

3. The tears a penitent shed baptized him. 

Such are the records in the literature of the old SvriaB 
Church,, aside from the versions already examined in a former 
speecho 

t Biblioth, Orient, Assemani, to3B, iv^ 241-2. I omit by the dots th® 
eucharistic references for brevity. 

* Biblioth, Orient, iii, 357, wjoro. ve nmnrndhitho aith li dhemado. 
X Manwxhitho dherne.. 



Mode of Baptism. 247 

This baptism of blood and tears and legal sprinklings for 
purifications we find in the early Greek Church also. Thus 
we read in Clement Alexandrianus, A. D. 190, repeated by 
Eusebius, that a backslider was overtaken by John, the 
Apostle, and reclaimed. "Then, trembling, he lamented 
bitterly, and embracing the old man (John) as he came up, 
attempted to plead for himself with his lamentations, as much 
as he was able; as if baptized a second time with his own 
tears."J 

Chrysostom: "And as those who are baptized are washed 
with water, so those who are martyred are washed with 
(louontai) their own blood." 

John of Damascus reckons seven baptisms, the seventh thus: 
" Seventh, that which is by blood and martyrdom, with which 
Christ himself for us was baptized." 

Athanadus : "For it is proper to know that, in like manner, 
the fountain of tears by baptism cleanses man." Again : 
" Three baptisms, cleansing all sins whatever, God has be- 
stowed on the nature of man. I speak of that of water, and 
again, that by the witness of our blood, and thirdly, that by 
tears, with which also the harlot was cleansed.* 

In all these cases baptism is accomplished by tears falling 
on one, or by streaming over one's face even. It is efi:ected 
by blood streaming from wounds in the body — all by affusion. 
Origen also speaks of " the baptism of blood," referring to that 
of Christ on the cross. So does Tertullian. 

Lactantius, A. D. 325 ; " So likewise he might save the 
Gentiles by baptism, that is, by the sprinkling of the purifying 
water."! 

Jerome, the learned translator of Hebrew and Greek into 
Latin in Ezekiel xxxvi, 25: "Sprinkle clear water on you," 
says: "So that upon those who believe and are converted 
from error, I might pour out the clear water of baptism."" 

t Euselius' Eccles, H. B. iii, ch. 23, Latin ver. reads, lachrymis deuno 
baptizatus est. 
* See the original Conant's Baptizein, p. 130-132. 
tSie etiam gentes baptismo, id est, purifiici roris perfusione salvaret. 



248 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Cyril regarded the washing of Isaiah i, 16, Lev, viii, 6, 7, as 
baptism. 

Ambrose: "To the baptized he said, concerning which 
[white robes of innocence] the prophet said, thou shalt 
sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be cleansed. Thou shalt 
wash me and I shall be whiter than snow. For he who is 
baptized both according to the law [sprinkled} and according 
to the Gospel is made clean, according to the law, because 
Moses, with a bunch of hyssop, sprinkled with the blood 
of the Lamb.^t 

Cyril, of Alexandria, on Is. iv, 4 : "For we have been baptized 
not with mere water, neither indeed have we been sprinkled 
with the ashes of a [red] heifer for the purifying of the flesh 
alone, as the blessed Paul saith, but with the Holy Spirit, 
and with a Divine and mentally discerned fire, destroying the 
filth of the violence within us, etc." Ambrose baptized 
Theodosius, the great, on his death-bed. 

Hilarius : " There are not wanting daily sick persons who 
are to be baptized." Geanadius, A. D. 490, said the person 
to be baptized was either sprinkled or dipped. § 

Novatian: As this is a noted case, we give it very literally, 
the more so, because it has been so designedly perverted, and 
grossly rendered. 

To him indeed, the origin, or author of his profession was 
Satan, who entered into and dwelt in him a long time, who 
being assisted by the exorcists, while attacked with an obsti- 
nate disease, and being supposed at the point of death, 
received it [baptism] on the bed on which he lay, being 
sprinkled — if indeed it be becoming to say that {ton toiouten) 
such [a wicked] person as he received it," or could receive 
baptism,* l!^otice. 



X Adspergebat sangiiiiie agni, vol. 1, 356. 
I Vel adspergatur, vel iatirihitur. 

* Eiisebiiis Eccles. His. B. vi. ch. xliii, 401, § 15 Recensuit Ed. Burton, 
Oxoiiii, IS08, voK 1, perichiituei& e'aben ei gr xrae legem tan toiautun 



Mode of Baptism. 249 

1. "No doubt is thrown on his mode of baptism. "He re- 
ceived it" — baptism, (elaben). 

2. It was by sprinkling. 

3. Recovering, it was never proposed to rebaptize him. 

4. If baptism be immersion, how could they say he received 
immersion by being sprinkled on his bed? 

5. Doubt is expressed as to whether we may consider it 
baptism if the party is not a genuine penitent, but a deceitful 
hypocrite, as Novatian was held to be by these parties. 

6. How miserably and by what self contradictions, immer- 
sionists have rendered this passage, can be seen by looking at 
A. Campbell's rendering of it in his Christian baptism, on 
page 189, 191, and almost any immersion work. 

Origen, born A. D. 185, the most learned of all the fathers 

in all the early ages of the Church, his ancestors contemporary 

with the Apostles and Christians, commenting on John i, 24, 

says : 

*' How came you to think that Ehas, when he should come, would bap- 
tize ? — who did not baptize the wood upon the altar in the days of Ahab, al- 
though it needed purification or cleansing {deomena loutro) in order that it 
might be burned when the Lord should be revealed by fire ; for this was 
ordered to be done by the priests." 

To the same effect speaks St. Basil, A. D. 310: "Ellas showed the 
power of baptism on the altar, having consumed the victim, not by fii*e, 
but by water . . . when the water . . . was for the third time pom-ed 
on the altar, the fire began. . . . The Scripture hereby shows that 
through h^iptism he that," etc. So write several other fathers. 

Now, notice, 1. It was the wood upon the altar Origen speaks of as being 
baptized. 2. He says the priests did the baptizing, not Elias. 3. How 
did the priests baptize the altar ? The passage, 1 Elings xviii : 33, says 
they joowrec? it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood.^'' The water was 
poured on the wood. Origen says they baptized the wood upon the altar. 
Now, where is dip ? Did they dip the wood into the '' barrels of water?" 
Did they plunge the wood into the poured water? Where is the immerse?" 
But Mr. A. Campbell, following Carson, etc., suggests that twelve barrels 
c^ wsiter overwhelmed the altar — submerged ^^asitwere^^ the altar. But 
where is the dip, the plunge, the immersed, even if that were true, though it 
is utterly untrue and monstrous ? 

Eemember now. Dr. Graves is here to prove that the bap- 
tism Christ commands is immersion. He appeals to philology. 



250 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and is so suddenly and completely overthrown that he took 
the nearest cut for Jordan we ever saw. He met complete 
overthrow. 

Kext, he applied to en, eis, apo, ek, and they all stood from 
under. He proved nothing. He applied to bury by baptism 
into death, but we saw death was not water — it was not water 
baptism at all, and bury did not necessarily imply envelop- 
ment. 

i^ext, he fell back on plant, Rom. vi, 5. But we showed 
that " planted together," more properly " engrafled together," 
"born together" in the likeness of his death; crucifixion 
demonstrated it not to allude to immerse. Trees are planted, 
not dipped. 

He then thought it was time to assail some of our positions — 
late in the day, to be sure, but better late than never. He 
assailed our lexicons, but our armor was " from the armory of 
Grod.'* He failed signally and completely. He has ventured 
to complain of Syriac, belittle scholarship, look wise, hold up 
his hands, express horror, but all fails. 

He dashed boldly up to the attack on classic Greek on one 
point or so, but went under there. He has failed in every 
point — failed in all. 

And now, what can he do? Of course he has to say some- 
thing. He is here to support a great interest. He must go 
ahead. 

But look at our side. Lexicons all support us — Greek lex- 
icons, Hebrew lexicons, Arabic lexicons, the dreaded Syriac 
lexicons — Ethiopic, Chaldee, all are with us. 

Classic Greek pours a storm of grape and canister, of red- 
hot shot and shell into their camp. Their own authors close 
up egress and shut them helplessly in where the pitiless storm 
beats upon their exposed and uncovered ranks. 

The Laver and daily Jewish baptisms come in with a terri- 
ble force and sweep the field. For fifteen hundred years millions, 
billions — hundreds of millions — hundreds of billions — yea, and 
a TRILLION upon them, of baptisms, all by affusion, under 



Mode of Baptism. 251 

that influence, backed bj that record — John baptized with 
water and Christ gave the commission ! — [ Time out 

[The following intercoloquy then took place between the debaters.}— 
Reporter. 

Dr. Graves — Will Eld. Ditzler tell me what word in Syriac answers 
to dip in English ? 

Dr. Ditzler — I will tell you in the morning. 

Dr. Graves — Why, my boy of fifteen summers could do as well as 
that— only give him the requisite lexicons. I wish you to answer me now. 

Dr. Ditzler — Well, tamash is sometimes used in that sense. 

Dr. Graves — Well, now, will you abide by that answer and say that 
tamash would be the proper rendering of the EngUsh word dip f 

Dr. Ditzler — Well, perhaps tseva would come nearer in meaning to 
dip than tamash. 

Dr. Graves — Will you say, then, that tseva is the full and adequate 
translation of dip into Syriac ? 

Dr. Ditzler — Well, in point of fact I doubt whether there be any 
one word in Syriac that answers entirely to our dip. 



252 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' TWELFTH SPEECH. 

Argument from the Lexicons. 

Mr. President : — I commence now my argument from the 
lexicons. This is the first time I have come to inquire what 
the lexicons say. I have been trying to show you, by collating 
passages in which baptidzo occurs from the !N"ew Testament and 
the classics of the ancient and modern Greek authors, what is 
the usus loquendi of baptidzo to enable you in a good degree to 
exercise an independent judgment without aid from the lexi- 
cons; for it is to these sources the lexicographers refer to ascer- 
tain the meanings they give to words. Let us now see what 
they have found baptidzo to mean when used by the Greeks 
themselves. 

So many have such an undue respect and reverence for lexi- 
cons,! wish to say here, that they are not an ultimate authority. 
Their definitions are, or should be, founded upon the use of 
Greek writers, else they are worthless as authorities. No lex- 
icographer has any right to insert an arbitrary meaning of a 
term. He is not to be trusted if he inserts a solitary meaning 
that he cannot justify by the use of one or more standard Greek 
writers. Any man has a perfect right to go back of any Greek 
lexicon to the on^m«?50i^r(?e, the Greek writers themselves, as 
any English reader has to appeal from Webster, to Addison, 
Pope, Dryden or Shakspeare, for the definition of any given 
word. Usage is the Supreme Court of appeals, by whose 
decision every proposed interpretation must ultimately stand 
or fall. ISTow, while I say this, I am willing to settle this whole 
question by the testimony of lexicographers. 

On Real Meanings, as Opposed to Figurative. 

You have heard Baptist writers and speakers charged with 
false statements when they say, as they are wont in general 
terms with Dr. Robinson, President of Brown University, that 



Mode of Baptism. 



253 



all lexicographers give " to dip," " to immerse," as the only 
proper signification of baptidzo. We all mean by this,- that all 
give " to immerse" as the primari/, literal meaning of baptidzo, 
and our rules say that the primary, the definition that all lexi- 
cographers place first, * is the only real and proper definition. 
We do not mean that there are no figurative, poetical, mere ideal 
meanings, as "buried in sleep," "immersed in wine," "in 
taxes," "in debt," "in care," "in tears," "in suffering," "bap- 
tized in his own blood," but we say that no secondary or 
figurative use of the term is the literal, physical and 
real definition, and therefore, whatever my opponent may say, 
Baptists are justified by the highest critical authorities as, 
Ernesti,Morus and Stuart, in assuming that to dip, to immerse, 
are the only real definitions the lexicons give to baptidzo, since 
these are the only meanings they give as the primary or literal 
meanings. Therefore, I wish it distinctly understood that 
whenever, in this discussion, I give the primary meanings of 
baptidzo, as laid down in the lexicons, I understand myself as 
giving the true, real, physical definitions of the word, and am 
not open to the charge of garbling or suppressing any part 
of the truth respecting the real definition. I will be excused 
for repeating here, because it is the proper place, the rule I 
laid down in my last speech, touching real definitions. The 

FIRST DEFINITION EVER GIVEN TO A WORD IN THE AGES OF AGES 
PAST, IS THE ONLY TRUE PRIMARY, AND IS THE MEANING WE SHOULD 

GIVE THE WORD TO-DAY. In interpreting the Commission- — the 
law of baptism — we have nothing to do with fanciful, but 
with the literal, physical definition of the term baptidzo. 

Philology, Etc. 

N"ow, as touching the determination of the current signifi- 
cation of words by the principles of philology ,--and Eld. 
Ditzler's newly discovered principles of philology that the 
scholars of the past eighteen hundred and thirty years knew 
nothing about, until broached by the wild Furst, of Germany, 
and adopted by my opponent, there is, as yet, no accepted 
theory: it is terra incognita, a field unexplored by scholars. 

* Stokius and Furst excepted. 



2 54 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

There are no settled principles of philology by which we can 
conclusively determine the current definition of terms by 
their etymology. It is true that very often the etymological 
is the real physical sense of a term ; but then, words so drift 
away from this, that not a shadow of their etymological mean- 
ing remains — e. g.^ prevent, jpre^ before venio^ I come; from 
its etymology and use, two hundred years ago, it signified to 
yo before, to precede, but never in our day. Then it was its 
primary and real definition, but now its primary, to binder 
and go before or precede, is not its meaning at all. Then 
there are many words whose radices are unknown — especially 
is it true of the Hebrew and Greek languages. It is owing to 
the fact of its being unexplored ground that men who are 
given to riding hobby-horses make such frequent incursions 
into it, and cut such fantastic tricks in it, until they break the 
legs of their hobbies, and then they ^' come down" — and 
subside — having been the laughing stock of standard scholars 
for a brief hour, they pass away and the mention of their 
names in after years excites only a smile — they are never re- 
ferred to as authorities by sober men. Germany once had 
such a man, and his name was Furst. He was known as the 
" wild " or " crazy" critic, and the strange principles of philology 
you have heard from my opponent were conceived in Furst's 
brain — i.e. that the primary meaning of a term is the first 
meaning ever given to it, or as Elder Ditzler calls it, the his- 
torical primary, although that meaning has ceased to be a 
meaning now! But what have we to with the probable first 
meaning of the term baptidzo. We want the literal, generally un- 
derstood current meaning when Christ used it. It seems that 
every country has had, or has its "crazy" critic. Scotland, a 
few years ago, had one in the person of Mr. Ewing (Presby- 
terian). He felt it incumbent upon him to serve his church 
by getting the idea of immersion out o^ baptidzo. He affirmed 
that there was a relation between " 6(Y^^o " and the English 
word ^^ pop.^' By the aid of his philological chemistry the 6 
of bapto was converted into p, and a into o, while at the same 
time the to became sublimated; thus leaving in his critical, 
retort, after the labored process was over, the word pop, and so 
poptizo, " to pop," is the primary meaning of baptidzo! To such 



MoL^E OF Baptism. 255 

fanciful and puerile results does the mimetic theory oflanguao-ij 
conduct. America has its " crazy hobby-rider in the person 
of Dr. Dale, who can demonstrate that the real meaning of 
baptidzo invariably indicates intus position (to iplace within) , and 
yet by his philological chemistry, it means only to sprinkle ;i 
few drops of water upon the subject! My opponent I hear has 
recently smashed the pretty hobby-horse of his Bro. Dale, 
ambitious to have the whole field to himself and his newlv 
constructed philological pony. I affectionately forewarn him 
of his untimely end. He should cultivate in himself a higher 
ambition than to 

"Shine to delude, and dazzle to expire.'' 

As for the probable etymology of baptidzo, I have no theory. 
Curtius, whom Dr. Benezler informs us is one of the ablest 
philologists of Germany, derives bapto from bathos. If now 
we accept the etymology of the learned German, this becomes 
additional evidence that bapto means to dip or plunge into; for 
bathos in Greek signifies deep. Hence, baptidzo^ the word used 
to express the Christian ordinance, being derived from bapto, 
would itself also partake of this meaning of its primitive. 
Accordingly, that must be regarded as a not insignificant 
relationship that allies baptidzo with a Greek word that means 
*'deep." This etymology being accepted, another proof is 
furnished, in addition to all the overwhelming arguments 
which exist, that baptidzo means to dip or to put deep ( bathos) 
into water. 

When Luther translated the Bible into German, he ren- 
dered the Greek baptidzo by taufen . In defining this German 
verb which he had employed to express the baptismal act, he 
wrote that it is doubtless derived from the adjective ^^V/(deep), 
because whatever is tauf {ot baptized) is sunk deep into water. 
Thus, in the German language, the relation of the verb is 
precisely similar to that in the Greek. And it may be added 
that, though now in Germany, baptism is performed by affu- 
sion, and this same word taufen is retained to express the act, 
this only shows how, from unscriptural innovations, words are 
made to take on significations that did not originally belong 
to them. Taufen is derived from a word meaning "deep." 



256 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

How ill the world does pouring and sprinkling answer at all 
to this radical meaning? Has not the same departure from 
its early meaning occurred with our English word baptize. 

As a full answer to my opponent's historical primary theory, 
I submit one illustration. I suppose there are lawyers here. 
Suppose a citizen of Carrollton should bring an action for 
damages against a party for preventing him from entering his 
dwelling. But the counsel for the defendant moved the court 
to quash the indictment, on the ground that the pleadings do 
not set forth that his client had in any form or manner 
trenched on the plaintiff's rights, or even trespassed on his 
property. They merely set forth that the defendant prevented 
plaintiff in returning to his dwelling — that is, defendant only 
entered plaintiff's dwelling before plaintiff" did, but that he did 
this with any evil or felonious purpose, it is not attempted to 
show. The counsel would then clench his argument by 
adding : 

" May it please the court, nothing is more clear than that 
the very etymology of the term shows, as the court is too well 
aware to make it necessary for me to insist on the point at 
large, that to prevent a man — which is all that is alleged against 
my client — is ^0 ^0 before him^ which defendant claims is the 
true •' historical primary." I therefore move that the court 
dismiss the action with costs." 

"What do you think of such an argument as that? Why, 
two hundred years ago, *' to go before " was the current 
meaning of the word " prevent," as our version of the Bible 
abundantly proves. 

Replication. 

1. I reserve what more I have to say touchingthe Syria c ver- 
sion and cognate matters, for my argument from versions, save 
this remark : Suppose I should grant that Christ did speak in 
the Syriac or Araraaen dialect, he did not give the commission 
in that language, nor did the Holy Spirit select it in which to 
give us the ^ew Testament. The Greek is the inspired text; 
the Syriac version, made centuries after Christ, is a human 
and a fallible one, and is not to be compared with the Divine 



Mode of Baptism. 



257 



text, and even could he prove that the Syriac version gave 
sprinkle in every place where baptidzo is used in the Sacred 
text, the fact would not weaken my argument, but it would 
destroy the claims of the Syriac, as being a reliable version. 
But it is improbable that Christ spoke in Syriac, and in no 
instance does the Syriac translate baptidzo by a verb that pri- 
marily means to sprinkle. 

2nd. "What does he mean by saying that " the word for the bap- 
tism of the Savior is brecho ? Does he mean in the Grreek f It 
certainly is not. Does he mean in the Syriac version? It 
most certainly is not. What does he mean? Christ never 
was physically baptized but once, in whole or in part, his 
feet never were baptized when his body was not — breeho is 
nowhere used for baptism in any sense. 

3rd. ITor is brecho interchanged with baptidzo by any apostle 
or apostolic Christian. I am compelled to meet such assertions 
with an unqualified denial, until some shadow of proof is 
submitted. This is not the place for assertions, but for proofs. 
Let him produce one instance in the Greek of the Old or "New 
Testament where ^am^, the proper Hebrew synonym of baptidzo, 
is translated by brecho — to sprinkle — or where brecho is inter- 
changed with taval or baptidzo, or any word referring to Chris- 
tian baptism. Until he does so, let him no longer affirm 
that " the land was baptized wij;h the falling rain," or that 
"David baptized his couch with his tears," or "Mary the 
Savior's feet." He has no right to use the term baptize, in 
these instances. No land anywhere was ever baptized, no bed 
was ever baptized, and Mary never baptized any one ! 

4th. Scholars will decide, where the crushing applies— I have 
no concern. 

6th. Origen — he is never done saying, declares that the wood 
(Elijah's) altar, was immersed — overwhelmed — with water. 
Very well; no one disputes it; but I say he spoke figuratively, 
as writers do when they say, " the land was drenched — baptized 
— in the blood of its sons." It matters not, with what vessel — 
a barrel of tub — or how the water was applied to the altar. 
Origen said it was immersed, a manifest metonymy — the efi*ect for 
the act; it was as wet as if it had been immersed. 
17 



258 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

6th. But I "came back feebly on perfundo.^^ Well, it is a 
most feeble thing. Is not the preposition per, all over, "all 
about" in composition with fundo — to pour out, to sprinkle — 
and hence does not jperfundere mean to " overpour," " to be- 
sprinkle" — and, of course, this and all similarly compounded 
verbs, denoting to divide, to scatter, can take an indivisible 
object without an additional preposition — it has one. Is this, 
the last, the best he can do with my destructive canon ? 

7th. He demands proof of what never before was questioned 
by living man, much less a scholar — ^. e. that Agamemnon 
" immersed himself, dipped himself " clear under." — Ex. 65. I 
find it in the very text itself. It cannot be " parsed" — con- 
strued with any other sense. Then I bring an authority whom 
Eld. D. never doubts, however often he may contradict — i. e. 
Jacob Ditzler — see Wilkes and Ditzler's Debate — attempting 
to keep Judith out of the water. He says "if she had gone 
into the water, ez5, with, the accusative would have been used." 
Very well. In this case as in the case of the baptism of Jesus, 
we have eis with the accusative — baptison eis lim.nen — im- 
mersing himself in the lake! He therefore did go "clear 
under," according to the authority of Jacob Ditzler, and then, 
according to the superstition that ordered the immersion, the 
person must go "clear under" to receive any benefit from 
the charmed waters of the lake. 

Then I have three or four times asked him to tell you if 
King Agamemnon survived his immersion into the lake Copais, 
when on his way to the Trojan war, but he is as silent as the 
grave. I will tell you. He was in the ten years' siege of 
Troy after that immersion, and returned to his kingdom again. 
Why would he not refer to this ? By this example alone we 
can determine the classic use of baptidzo, that it is to immerse, 
and we learn how to render " eis ton Jorafanen," for we have here 
a similar phrase, -'baptizoon eis ten Kopaida limnen,^' which 
Stnart, a Pedobaptist, translates ^'plunging into lake Cojxds.'' 
If the latter must be translated " immersing into the lake Co- 
pais" the former must be " immersed into the river Jordan." 
And since he is so fond of these Greek exam[)les, I give him 
another, and mark if he notices it at all. 



Mode of Baptism. 259 

Plutarch, who was born only fifty years after Christ, On Su- 
perstition, III. The superstitious man, consulting the jugglers 
on his frightful dreams, is told : 

" Call the old Expiatrix and plunge (baptize) thyself into the sea, and 
spend a day sitting on the ground." 

Notice the Greek, kai haptison seauton eis thalassan. Here we 
have Eld. Ditzler's eis with the accusative, and it must, there- 
fore, mean into the sea, and plunging into the sea I am inclined 
to believe that he was immersed, dipped under the water, over- 
whelmed by it, but if no living being ever survived an immer- 
sio!% how could the man of bad dreams spend a day sitting 
upon the shore after it ? Eld. Ditzler will, of course, explain 
all this, but he'll never take back his assertion— never ! Will 
he read it " sprinkle thyself into," or " with the sea ?" Stuart 
and all critics translate this, " plunge yourself into the sea," 
etc. 

!N'ow, mark well two things. We have here the very same 

verb and regime that we have in the Commission — the law of 

baptism— the present participial form of baptidzo, having the 

force of the imperative, and, therefore, if the sorceress did 

command the subject of bad dreams to immerse^ and not to 

sprinkle or pour himself in the sea, then, as certainly did 

Christ command his apostles to immerse believers ; and, if m 
ten thalassan took the subject into the water of the sea, then, 

eis ton Jordane took Christ and the subjects he baptized into 

the waters of the Jordan. Eld. Ditzler, nor any living man 

can escape these conclusions. 

But did you notice how he disposed of the fox case, Example 
86 ? With the Greek text before his eyes he told you that 
" the man baptized the fox's tail with oil, and, therefore, it 
must have been done by pouring the oil upon his tail, and not 
by dipping the tail into the oil." There is certainly nothing 
in the Greek that intimates that the fox's tail was baptized, but 
it says : " The man baptizing tow in some oil bound it to the 
fox's tail and set fire to it." There is something about the 
Greek that wonderfully confuses my opponent's mind. From 
this and the specimens he has given us, translating Greek cer- 
tainly is not hi^ forte, I did not expect anything like this 



26o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

from the reputed master of forty languages who never makes 
a mistake about facts of any sort. By no grammar of the 
Greek language can he translate this passage Kai stupeion elaio 
baptisas, as he has done, poured oil upon the tow; for the tow, 
not the oil, is the direct object of the verb, and elaio oil is the 
simple dative of element and must be translated in oil. 

You have heard how he sought to cover his defeat here by 
turning this qase into a ridiculous test, that this case reminded 
him of my sliding hold upon the tail of immersion. I did not 
come here to jest or to trifle, as God is my witness, but if it is 
pleasantry he relishes, then I submit it to this congregation if 
the figure he drew would not more truly represent his own 
very slight hold. on the tail of the Syriac! Why, sir, I asked 
him last night for the verb in Syriac that he would say 
undoubtedly corresponded to our word "to dip," and he 
asked the whole night to find the word ! Why, sir, my boy of 
sixteen could, with a lexicon in hand, find the word, only give 
him one whole night for it, then he gave two and took them 
back, and hesitatingly, finally concluded there was none " that 
precisely answered to it ! " 

Ah, sir — 

"This index learning turns no student pale, 
But holds the eel of Science by the tail." 

I^ow, if he has had fun enough, lam done with it. 

But this Example cannot be disposed of by a laugh. More 
things than one can be settled by this single example. I have 
told you that the proper rendering of the simple preposition 
" en " would, in the various passages in the Kew Testament 
settle the whole baptismal question, and so the very rule by 
which the phrase — stupeion hajptisas elaio can alone be properly 
rendered will give us the grammatical rendering of ''baptidzo 
hudati, baptisei en pneumati kai puri" — one sentence that illus- 
trates the dative of element, with or without the preposition en. 

Mr. President, I do not dwell upon this case to torture my 
opponent, but he, with the opposers of immersion, in defiance 
of the well known rules of grammar, persistently translates the 
dative of element, whether with or without the preposition en 
by, with, whenever it refers to the baptism of water or of the 



Mode of Baptism. 261 

Holy Spirit, and you witnessed the laugh he created among 
the four and twenty Elders on the left, and the friends of 
sprinkling, when he treated not as a scholar, those ex- 
pressions of John the Baptist. (Luke iii, 16). "j%o men 
hudati baptidzo. . . . Autos humas baptisei en pneumati agioo kai 
purV ^^ Baptidzo hudati, baptisei en pneumati kai puri." Does 
he not know, does not every school boy know, that the 
dative answering to the question ^^wherein" is used without 
the preposition, the en being understood ? Has he not met 
scores, if not hundreds of instances in his Greek Testament, if 
he reads it? IsTotice these: '^ Tauti to nukti^'^ ^'in tha,t night,'' 
(Luke vii, 42.) ^'Zeon too pneumati" (the very word,) "fervent 
in spirit." (Acts xviii, 25.) Will Elder Ditzler say "with the 
night" and "with the spirit?" ''Poreaesthai hooduozs autois," 
^' to walk in their own ways." (Acts xiv, 16.) The dative 
here answers to the question ^'wherein" as, following baptidzo 
hudati answers the same " in water as in the enveloping ele- 
ment in which the act took place." The dative is also used 
without the preposition, in answer to the question ''where,'' 
or the element in or within which anything is said to be done. 
And if he sees fit to join issue, I will give him instances for 
half an hour from the classics, if he can possibly leave the 
Syriac long enough to attend to a thoroughly scholarly discus- 
sion. It is time for bold assertions to give waj^ to grammatical 
rules. I will defend Conant, whose scholarship he is wont to 
depreciate, and translate this once more* "He immersed the 
tow in oil and bound it to the fox's tail." Stuart gives two 
instances to illustrate this construction of the dative of ele- 
ment without a preposition. " They dip the wool themio in 
warm water." "Dipped oistois in the gall of serpents." 

He takes this profoundly critical notice of Example 30. 
^The party breathed like one baptized — who can breathe 
when immersed ? " I must not say he intentionally misstates 
the text — it was before his eyes— I will say he makes a gross 
mistake as to the fact, that he palpably misquotes and perverts 
what the author does say. He says, " she breathed as persons 
breathe after having been immersed " — not one while under 
the water, but like one who had been a little while under it 



262 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The case is manifestly against him, and he does see it, or he 
would have quoted it correctly. 

I obtained from the Eldei%the chapter and verse in Ezekiel^ 
where he said the Hebrew declared the land was baptized by 
being rained upon, and what do you think I found ? The He- 
brew word there is ta har, '^ to cleanse," not tavcd^ "to dip," 
nor even ruchats.^ " to wash " nor any word that ever signifies 
or is ever, in God^s word used to express " to dip," " to im- 
merse," or any term that enters into this controversy. The 
Greek of the seventy gives brechamene^ " moistened I " What 
right had Elder Ditzler to say the original reads "to baptize?" 
Will he now tell us the word in Syriac in the passage he 
translates baptized? I will tell him it is not ^'amad.'' 

Touching the testimony of Julianus, let him but produce 
the text, and I will show that his translation and construction 
of it is both incorrect and misleading. Julianus never said 
that perfundere was a real or Uterul meaning of baptidza — and 
what if he had? What he did suggest was promptly rebuked 
by Augustine. Nor does Schleusner, or S-tokius, or Schaett- 
gennius give perfundere as a real or proper meaning of baptidzoy 
but only to dip, to immerse. Tropical and poetical meanings 
are something else, and are never used in the language of law. 
As for my opponent's battlements, I candidly confess I have 
not been able to descry anything that would pass for one 
above ground ; and if I have once been in the ditch, it was 
when I went after my opponent* 

In my argument from lexical authorities, I wii-l notice his 
statement that tingo means ta sprinkle, and that TertuUian 
used it in this sense. 

He denies that the Eastern or Greek Church "all," [always, 
or all branches of it?] baptizes by dipping; but gives no au- 
thority to support his assertion. 

There is no one fact so patent in the history of that church; 
no one fact better known. It is simple waste of time to prove 
this to have been the universal practice of the Greek Church 
from its rise until the present time. I submit a single authori- 
ty, lest here some of his brethren m.ay be mislead by his asser^ 



Mode of Baptism. 263 

tiou, the remaining proof will be given in my argument from 

the practice of the Greek church. 

Dr. Wall.. — ''The Greek church in all its branches of it does still use 
immersion." "All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one- 
third part of Europe, are of the last sort, in which third part of Europe 
are comprehended the Christians of Grsecia, Thracia, Bulgaria, Rascia, 
Wallachia, Moldavia, Russia, Nigra, and so on ; and even the Musco- 
vites, who, if coldness of the country will excuse, might plead for a dis- 
pensation with the most reason of any. — His. of Inf. 5ap.,part ii, c. ix. 

When I quote the lexicons, I will give you what Gaza says 
of baptidzo. His very first meaning is, '' to dip repeatedly ! " 

He again consumed a large portion of his time in citing 
examples from Dr. Conant's "Baptizein" on the figurative 
uses of baptidzo. I again say, while it is true there are hun- 
dreds of instances of the figurative use of this as of every 
other word, we are not seeking for its figurative, but its 
physical or real signification, as used by the Savior in giving 
the only law for administering Christian baptism. ^"0 critic 
or commentator, and not even a controversialist known to me, 
ever claimed that 6a2>^f(i2;o, as it stands in the commission, is used 
in a metaphorical signification. If not, then why does my 
opponent spend all his time in producing its figurative uses? 
Should I take time in noticing the examples he produces in 
his last speech — every one figurative, as any reader of com- 
mon intelligence can see — I should justly forfeit the respect of 
this audience, as I am sure I w^ould that of Elder D. He gives 
them with the case of Xovatus to engage, if possible, my atten- 
tion, and lead me away from my argument. In my argument 
from the testimony of the Fathers, ancient and modern scholars 
and historians, I will give the testimony of these very men as 
to the meaning of the word and the mode of baptism in their 
dav. 

As to his closing remarks, his exhortation, or " home- 
stretch," as be calls it, I have only this to say. If he thi;iks 
it worthy of his scholarship, his candor, his reputation as a 
Christian debater, worthy of, and suited to the taste of his 
people, I suppose I ought to be satisfied, since it can injure 
only himself. Thinking men and Christians of all names 
will decide for themselves after an examination of our argu- 



264 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

meDts and proofs whether he is warranted in his extravagant 
assertions; and it will suofeest itself to some that I have not 
yet examined a lexicon or a version, or taken the testimony 
of historians, of critics, commentators or Pedobaptist scholars 
as to the meaning and use of haptldzo, or the practice of the 
apostolic churches!! How does he know that I have nothing 
from all these sources to bring forward? He could, with the 

same propriety, have made such assertions at the close of his 
first speech as his last. It is doubtless one of his old stereo- 
typed closes, used in some previous debate, and he intended 
to have used it at the conclusion of his last speech on this 
proposition, but mistakes will happen. 

I here close mv examination of the classic Greek authors. 
I have given you 21 examples, out of the hundreds given by 
Conant, selecting those that would answer the double purpose 
of disproving his assertion, and establishing the usus hquendi 
of the term haptidzo in classic Greek. He has not produced 
an example in which a scholar would render haptidzo by -'to 
sprinkle*' or " to pour upon.^' Mark that, but on the other 
hand, to immerse, or its equivalent, is demanded in every case 
denoting physical action, and all the figurative and poetic or 
ideal meanings given of haptidzo, are grounded upon the idea 
of immersion, overwhelm, etc. — Time out. 



Mode of Baptism. 265 



DR. DITZLER'S TWELFTH REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators. — The Doctor returns to en and 
brings up the dative of ^'whither ? " and talks glibly of schol- 
arship. That part will do for children. !N'ow he asserts that 
hudati occurring without the en, is under the heading "where- 
in ?" Is not that rich ? The dative is here used then, not of 
instrumentality, as speak with the voice, {phonae), smite with 
the sword, baptize with water, with the Spirit, with fire, but he 
makes it an answer to wherein ? In what fire, in what Spirit, 
in what water ? Wherein were ye baptized ? That will do for 
"torture" to the King's English and Luke's Greek, but no 
torture to us. He cites 'Hanti to nuktf' as a case in hand. Is 
the night pointed to as an instrument with which something 
is done, as is water, or the spirit, or fire ? or is it referred to as 
a point of time in which or during which something took 
place ? In the night, during the night, on that night even, 
would all answer to that use of the dative, but it would not do 
for this use, during, in, on the water. He cites "fervent in 
spirit," too pneumati. Does this or the next one he cites answer- 
ing he says to "wherein," point out that the spirit is the 
instrument with or by means of which we are made fervent ? 
no, he will say. Then it is not a case in hand at all. The 
nicer force of the Greek, is fervent in respect to the spirit. That 
is we are to be fervent. Wherein ? In what respect ? 'Now 
comes in that use of the dative — fervent in reference to the 
spirit ; our spiritual nature is fervent. But he says the dative 
is used "in answer to the question where ? " and wants me to 
join issue there ! Indeed ! But is that the use of the dative 
anoint with oil (en), or sprinkle with blood (haimati), thousands 
on thousands of such examples filling up the volume of Greek 
the world over — is that use of it in answer to where ? "What 
does he mean? Did John mean in what fire? where was the 
fire? where the water? where the Holy Spirit in which people 
were to be baptized ? I^Tothing of the kind. We have already 



266 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

given examples enough on en — could multiply them a ImndreMl 
fold. There is no proof as to the primary meaning of en: his 
assertion has no support. !N'or is his count true or just. If 
en occurred 5000 times meaning m, by^ at locally^ and only 10 
times meaning with as an instrumentality^ it helps him not. But 
hundreds of times in Bible Greek en means loith. We gave a 
number of cases. 

But we have an endless contest on what is the primary — 
whether it is mere current use, or the first meaning the 
word had. We say the hitter, Dr. G. the former. 

Fairbairn (Hermaneutical Manual, p. 97,) after the very 
judicious remarks of §4 p, 93, gives us the best possible rule 
on the subject : 

''In the great majority of cases, ih.Q etymological is also the actual sense 
of the word ; and even when the acquired or metaphorical use comes 
materially to differ from the iprimary one, the knowledge of the -primary is 
still of service, as most commonly a certain tinge or impress of it survives 
even in the ultimate." 

On p. 96 he dwells on the folly of "making what is the 'pri- 
rnary ground of our words and ideas, their ultimate standard 
and measure." He contrasts '^acquired or metaphorical" with 
the "primitive and sensational meaning" — z. 6., meaning known 
by sense, as Fowler explains : "Words thus in current use 
sometimes escape altogether from their original meaning." Thus 
this great standard explicitly tells us the current is not the 
■primary meaning. 

But Jahn is a great standard al«o in these matters. Intro- 
<Inction to the Old Testament, p. 95, § 31, he says. 

"Etymology, that is, the investigation of the -primary signification of words^ 
nnd of the manner in which other significations have arisen. (Italics 
/>i-s). By the primary signification is meant, that which the 

iXVENTOES OF THE LANGUAGE ORIGIN AliLY AFFIXED TO A W^ORD." 

So Gesenius, Havernick, and all authorities treat it. It 
remained for my opponent to take a position so wild, so absurd, 
and defiant of all fact and the very meaning of the word pri- 
mary, whicb means first, the first meaning the word had. 
And as he has never attempted to meet my arguments here, 
and never will, it stands in the record demonstrated, that 



Mode of Baptism, 267 

sprinkle is the primary meaning of baptidzo^ and immerse is a 
derived, a metaphorical meaning — purely so. 

CLASSIC GREEK ON BAPTIDZO. 

Dr. Graves feels it to be absolutely necessary, as well he 
might, to come to the rescue of dip in classic Greek. In 
answer to my facts that baptidzo never means to dip, though 
bajjto does at times, but not immerse, he now cites examples, 
15, 16, 39, 59, 65 and 86. Well, IvTo. 39 we already examined 
and found it damagingly against the learned Doctor. Let us 
examine the rest, 

'No. 15, in Conant : "The ship being submerged, (baptized), 
confusion seized the fleet of the barbarians." 

Well, this is not dipping. The ship was sunk, went to the 
bottom of the sea, and there it remains yet — has for two 
thousand years. How would you like such a baptism ? That 
is not dip, putting in and immediately withdrawing the object. 
In one case we saw confusion, and plans of leaving a baptized, 
but not immersed ship. No specific meaning attached in 
Polybius to baptidzo. 

No. 16, in Josephus : "Continually pressing down — i. e. 
immersing the boy, and baptizing him, as if in play." Now 
what is more common in boys swimming, than to splash water 
in each other's face, bedash with water? We have often seen 
it done, often participated, where they stand and throw water 
on each other, till one or the other could not get breath, and 
would have to turn and run. We see them swim after another 
and with one hand throw on the other, till it becomes almost 
impossible to get breath in a short time. One cannot breathe 
when water is dashed rapidly or continuously — aei — all the time 
— in the face. Had they immersed him enough to cause to 
perish, it would have been evident malice, but they aflused 
him with water, baptized his face so it suftbcated him, as well 
as often pressing him down — barountes, immersing, barountes 
expressing that. 

The next example is 59, in Conant : "But they, by them= 
selves baptizing, and immersing, (sinking) {baptidzomenoi kai 
kataduontes) in the pools, were all useless, and many of them 



26S The Great Carrollton Debate. 

also perished." How could they be immersed by hapiidzo 
here, when kataduno, "immerse," has to come after, to immerse, 
them? Yoa know it is the main Greek word in constant use 
for immerse, so rendered by all, and constantly, every time, 
rendered by the only English of immerse by Conant, "sink." 
This text, then, shows that baptidzo does not properly mean 
"immerse" even in the decline, the iron age of Greek. 

He declares that I said the "oil was poured on the tail." I 
will admit I made a lapsus, a thing Dr. Graves is guilty of 
most constantly, but a rarity it is with me. I said tail for tow, 
I admit. But now, the tow was baptized with oil, elaio, dative 
case, no preposition. Now, which is most reasonable, that 
the man should pour oil on the tow, or dip the tow in the oil ? 
Oil is often thick, tow is so light you could not immerse it into 
the oil unless you took a stick or something and pressed it 
into the oil. It was most natural and convenient, therefore, 
to pour the oil on the light tow and set it on fire, after binding 
it to the tail of the fox. It is the reverse of proving dipping. 
Suppose it read anointed with oil, you would say it was affusion. 
Dr. Graves wants solemnity now. Well, he introduced the 
levity, he raised the laugh, and when we turned the tables 
badly upon him he is opposed to it. His people thought it 
was nice to hear him talk as he did ; we only dosed them with 
their own physic. 

Why, really the Doctor put on such airs of manner that a 
friend of mine offered me his boy, who, he said, could equal 
Dr. G., or any one, cutting all sorts of "monkey shines," but 
I declined the generous offer. Dr. G. introduced the levity — 
the moment he desists he will find that I have no inclination 
that way. 

Case 71, in Conant, we already showed (Reply 10), was no 
case of dipping. It was a mass of red-hot iron so large that 
smiths, (plural) were required to draw it out — so it is in the 
Greek — and we know such a mass of red-hot iron, with its 
"fiery glow," is not plunged into tubs of water by smiths for 
several reasons. It would ruin the iron. It would throw all 
the water out of the tub or trough, and considerably to the 
annoyance of the smiths. In such cases the water is always 



Mode of Baptism. 269 

sprinkled or poured on the iron. The Greek reads — baptized 
with water — "the fiery glow" quenched with water — twice the 
word hudaii, with water, occurs. I want to hear the Doctor on 
the dative of instrument, here. There is no en involved at all. 

You will all bear me out that I have never made a fling at 
the Doctor, with the view to discredit his scholarship. I have 
treated him with every mark of courtesy, as the representa- 
tive of a great and able body of ministers — himself a leader 
of renown and distinction; all well deserved. If, however, he 
persists in adopting the opposite course in regard to myself, 
he may, perhaps, tempt me to retaliate, and if he does, I shall 
promptly call him to a test on languages. These matters are 
not pleasant. Dr. Graves asked me, just at the close of my 
speech, to tell him what was the Syriac word for dip. I gave 
him two words. I paused a moment, looking at him to read 
his design, for I knew he dad a purpose in it, and a careless 
answer, or one not guarded, might be used for capital. 1 
knew that there was no word in Syriac that meant specially to 
dip and that meant nothing else, and so I told Dr. Yarden (sit- 
ting by the Doctor) what the two words did mean — tamash 
and tzeva^ neither being exclusively dip, and never, in the 
older Syriac, implying immerse. Out of my pause he now 
seeks to make the impression that it was because I could not 
give it, that I did not answer at once ! I gave them my Syriac 
Testament, (Drs. Graves and Yarden), and they have had my 
byriac books all night. I gave the answer, therefore, im- 
promptu at his asking. Let us now proceed with the argu- 
ment. 

In Ezekiel xxii. 24. Now the word purify in Hebrew is 
here translated in the Syriac by baptize. In the Greek it is 
brecho, sprinkling, rain. The mode is given. It needs 
no lexicon. "Thou art the land that art not baptized; no, 
upon thee the rain has not fallen." The mode is pour- 
ing — it is baptism. In Ps. vi, 6, the Greek is brecho^ which 
the Doctor insists is a very slight sprinkle; a light, gen- 
tle afl'usion. That is all true. But the point is, that the 
word meaning such a little sprinkling as he tells of, is a num- 
ber of times translated (tzeva) baptize in the old Apostolic Yer- 



270 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

sion of the Syriac, both in the Old and Kew Testament. In the 
second and third centimes a sect of Christians called John's 
Disciples, as Neander Vol. I., Judd, in Dr. Graves' Essay on 
M. Stuart — Appendix, and Michaelis' edition of Castell's 
Syriac part of his lexicon issued apart, all tell us, as well as 
Assemani Bibliotheca Orientalis, Tom. 1., they used this word 
altogether for baptize, as far as their writings have been found, 
and the noun form of this word is their name, and as they bap- 
tized daily, they were called Hcemero-JBaptistai. One of them 
was pre-eminently dignified as ^' the Baptist,'^ because in being 
put to death his blood pouring from the wound " baptized his 
garments," as well as himself! 

Well, lexicons come up again, and Furst is attacked with 
renewed vigor. But till our points are met, that is useless. 
If we attack an author, we give reasons for it that all can 
appreciate. He assigns no reason, no grounds of objection 
against Dr. Rabbi Furst, himself an immersionist, but com- 
pelled by science and truth to give sprinkle as the primary 
meaning of baptidzo in Hebrew. We tell Dr. Graves that the 
"craze" of Furst all originated in his own brain. Me never 
heard a word against him in his life save from immersion 
" controversialists." 

But some "crazy" German has given it as his opinion that 
bapto comes from bathos. Indeed ! Then the crazy men are 
not all in asylums yet, evidently. What reason, what proof, 
what philological fact does he give to support it? Bapto is 
the root of baptidzo. Now if bapto comes from bathos, they 
would have the same fundamental signification, and simply 
part company as they branched ofi", as bapto and baptidzo and 
all words of all languages do. But baipto and bathos have not 
a shade, not one simple shade of meaning in common, neither 
has bathos with baptidzo. Wash, cleanse, drunk, overflow, over- 
whelm, dip, "dip repeatedly," never can come from bathos in 
Greek. Bathos means " height," as literally as depth, " alti- 
tude" — how much immerse is in that as a primary? 

Now for every point we make, we adduce the facts support- 
ing it. Where does bathos mean moisten, smear, stain, dye, 
color, or wash ? Of all " crazy men " this is the craziest. 



Mode of Baptism. 271 

Heuce the wild folly of such guesses the more requires that we 
strictl}^ adhere to scientific priuciples and facts. 

We will now introduce more Greek witnesses. Origen, the 
most learned of all the Fathers, the son of a renowned 
martyr, who was born only eighty-four years after John's 
death, whose immense Greek works that survive now, make 
nine huge, folio volumes, comments on 1 Kings xviii. So, 
wlici'ti Elijah had four pitchers of water, so it reads in the 
lieuiew and Greek, and all ancient versions, '• pitchers," water- 
buckets," [kadim) poured on the altar, it built of stone and 
\vuod ua the top of Carmel, a mountain, during the three 
year's drouth. This Greek calls it '• baptizing the altar." 
'' iiovv (janie you to think that Elias, when he should come, 
woald baptize, who did not baptize the wood i^ta xula) upon 
the altar in the days of Ahab, though it needed cleansing, 
( loutro),'' etc. 

Baail, a Greek Father of , the fourth century, (A. D. 310), 
calls it baptizing. '' Elias showed the power ot baptism on 
the altar, having consumed the victim * * * by water * * * 
tiie water * * * was for the third time poured on the altar * 
* * The kScriptures hereby show that through baptism he 
that," etc. He ''baptized the wood," "poured water on the 
wood." " The power of baptism on the altar," water poured 
on it. Now it is useless to waste time on the mode here. The 
pitchers of water were poured on an altar of wood on stones, 
an altar of wood large enough to hold up and burn up an ox. 
Dipping is not in it, plunging i? out of all question, and no 
one pretends that it was immersion. 

We read from Lightfoot's Horae Heh. ei Tat HI. 292. ( Lou. 
Debate, ^63), of Benaiah, " he one day struck his foot against a 
dead tortoise, and went down to Siloam, where, breaking all 
the little particles of hail, he baptized himself, [tabal). This 
w^as on the coldest dav in winter." Now the law, the New 
Testament, and Apocrypha all show this required baptism, 
and he did baptize himself. But surely he did not dip him- 
self in "the little particles of hail" he melted in his hand. 

We introduce another very important witness, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, born a little after John's death, wrote a vast 



272 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

number of Greek works about A. D. 190. Thirty-eight volumes 
still survived in the fourth century, and an immense folio 
edition still survives. I read from p. 1352, vol. 1. He quotes 
Homer several times, and the last sentence befere his quota- 
tion reads ; 

" In like manner they say it becomes those who have washed them- 
selves ( loumenous — i. e. louo) to go forth to sacrifice^ pure and bright." 

Clemens eajs : 

" But purity is to think purely. And indeed the likeness {eikon) of {ton 
baptismatos) the baptism [as just seen in washing before sacrifice] was that 
which was handed down from Moses by the poets thus : Penelope, hav- 
ing spbinkIlBD herself with water [hudraenomenae)^ having on her body clean 
garments, goes to prayer. And Telemachus ^ * * having washed 
his hands [cheiras nipsamenos) at the sea, prays to Aihaenae (Minerva) 
(Odyssey 11, 261.) This custom of the Jews, as also they often [pollakis) 
baptized themselves wpon a couch — epi koitae baptidzesthai — (that is, when 
meals are over — as they sat on such often as well as on a triclinium)^ is 
weU expressed in this wise: Be pure, not by washing {loutro)y but by 
thinkiQg." 

Here notice — 

1. The priestly washings of every kind, hands — all are 
denominated baptism. 

2. " Penelope sprinkled herself with water, ^^ hudor, water, and 
rainOy sprinkle. Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon defines the 
word thus : '* to water, to sprinkle with water, to pour out liba- 
tions to, to bathe, wash one's self: Od. iv, 750, [the very line just 
quoted^ to pour water over one's body." That is all. This is 
" the image, likeness^' of the baptism Moses handed down. 

3. " The Jews daily baptize [sitting] on a couch." What is 
the mode here ? Washing the hands at the sea, and sprinkling 
water on the body, are the baptisms put alongside those prac- 
ticed by the Jews. Such is the testimony of this learned 
Greek, so near the apostolic age. 

VERSIONS. 

The Versions. — Ln deference to and by request of my 
worthy opponent, I deferred the rest of the versions till we 
could dispose of other matters. 

We beg of you to remember that these are by far, by almost 
infinite odds, the most accurate, impartial and reliable sources 



Mode of Baptism. 273 

of information, on this subject, that can be possibly adduced 
as to what were the meanings, the usus loquendi in the apostolic 
age. The critics he and I read to you, lived from 1500 to 
1800 years after Christ. They wrote fifteen to seventeen hun- 
dred years after the apostles were all dead. Many wrote 
before some leading fathers of the third century w^ere recov- 
ered. The truth is, the versions have never been examined on this 
subject, till we had the honor to take hold of the question. 
The ease with which Dr. Judd exposes Stuart's blunders, 
shows this, and it could have been greatly extended. Imm'Cr- 
sionists have quoted and used the versions as they have the 
lexicons and authorities. We have both sides here now ; we 
will examine them, as I have at least fifteen or eighteen 
versions here with me. The Peshito and Arabic we have ex- 
amined in our second day's investigations — fourth speech. 

We showed that haptidzo is rendered by amad in Syriac and 
Arabic. That amad never means to dip. That no case has 
been found in the literature of the world in Syriac where it 
means to immerse. Nowhere is any word that properly means 
to immerse, or dip, ever rendered amad. On the contrary, 
louo (to wash, pour, sprinkle), is translated by amad. The 
pool of Siloam, in John ix, 7, where people " washed," is 
rendered by the noun of amad, several times in the Peshito. 
^ e saw that Castell tells us jprimarily — using that word which 
Michaelis in his edition of Castell abridges out as he does a 
great deal else, [I have both~\ it is to wash, derivatively, 
(Aphel) to immerse: nowhere so occurring in the New Tes- 
tament. That it is the same in Arabic, as Dr. Graves told us 
emphatically, and as Judd agrees. But Castell tells us it is 
"to make wet with rain." Catafago tells us so in his recent 
lexicon, while Castell adds, to sprinkle, sprinkle with water, 
with dew, bedew, etc. tSuch a word translates baptidzo in Sy- 
riac and Arabic — the first in the apostolic age, the latter in the 
golden age of Arabic culture, when one man spoke seventy-two 
dialects; when the court of Al Raschid was the renown of the 
world for learning ; when Aristotle, Homer and Plato were 
read, studied and rendered into Arabic. In that age, baptidzo 
was translated by tzeva, to besprinkle, baptize, by gasala, to 
wash, sprinkle, besprinkle, never dip, never immerse. Gasala 
18 



274 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

repeatedly translates nipto^ that ?ieyer means dip, immerse, but 
does mean to rain as well as wash, pour — Job xx, 23, where 
Symmachus (second century) has it brecho; the Hebrew and 
English, rain. The Arabic word that translates nipto and brecho, 
sprinkle, translates baptidzo, baptisma, baptismos. Yet thej^ 
claim the versions ! ! Later Syriac literature tells us of '' the 
baptism of blood of martyrdom," "baptism of tears.'' Was 
this dipping? Could men be dipped in their own tears? im- 
mersed in their own blood, as they were martyred in various 
ways ? 

While the old Vulgate andltala translate the other word in 
Syriac and Arabic for baptize, tzeva, by moisten once, twice 
by sprinkle, conspergatur and infunderis ; the Al Koran applies 
it to baptism, and to ih.Q juice of trees, their dripping sap. Surely 
drops (gutta) of sap from the cut in a tree, a plant, etc., falling 
on objects is not immersion. Yet it was baptism,. And this 
word was supposed to be so universally used for immersion, 
that Moses Stuart surrendered it to them and founded a leading 
argument on it!! This shows how superficially he examined 
the whole issue. Yea, so fully given over to immersion were 
many lexicographers, that Gesenius tells us this word in Hebrew 
is "to dip in, to immerse; hence to tinge, to dye," and "in 
the Targums often, to dye, to color;'" whereas it noivhere 
occurs in the Bible at all. The Chaldee word tzexa does — only 
in Daniel — is rendered sprinkle by Jerome, as just seen. 
^Nebuchadnezzar's body baptized, sprinkled with the dew of 
heaven," rendered "wet, moisten" by Gesenius. How 
dared he say it meant " immerse," in Hebrew, when there is no 
such Hebrew wordf When careful to tell us it means "dye" 
in Targums, why did he not tell us it means wash there ten 
times to where it means "dye" once, and translates not only 
tabal, baptize, but rachais, wash, pour f In Num. xix, 7, 8,10, 
16, and Lev. viii, 6, where Moses washes Aaron and sons at the 
door before the people, it is tzeva; a clear case of aftusion — 
rachats in Hebrew, secho in Onkelos. 

Yet such lexicons Sire forced to sustain our cause with such 
daring antagonism as this! Yet they are called Pedobaptists 
in such a way as to leave the impression that they were affusion- 
ists, reluctantly supporting the other sects ! 



Mode of Baptism. 275 

Itala and Vulgate. 

The Itala made in the second century by converts of the 
apostolic age, is next to the Peshito, the most valuable transla- 
tion we have. Jerome's Vulgate and it, are the same on those 
points : 

1st. They transfer baptidzo, in every instance in the IsTew 
Testament, not translating it at all. 

2d. They translate tabal ( Greek hajptidzo) 2 Kings v, 14, by 

wash, lavo, (wash, bedew, sprinkle). 

8d. They translate bapto, sprinkle — Rev. xix, 13. 

4th. Tbey translate the Chaldee for baptize, same as Syriac 
and Arabic, tzeva, by " to sprinkle " twice. * 

5. They never translate either baptidzo or tabal by baptize. 

^THiopic Version. 

Of this version, that zealous Baptist Dr. Gale, says : 

' The Syriac and Ethiopic versions, which for their antiquity, must be 

thought almost as valuable and authentic as the original itself^ being made 
from p?-imitive copies, in or very near the times of the apostles, and render- 
ing the passage ( Eom. xix, 13 bapto ) by words that signify to sprinkle, 
* * •■■'' very strongly argue that he ( Origen) has preserved the same 
word which was in the autograph." t 

This is more just of the Syriac, Sahidic, and Itala. The 
Ethiopic has a word expressing definitely to immerse, maab, 
" to overflow, submerse." It is never used for baptize, etc. 
Kow this version renders — 

1. Bapto by to sprinkle, as Dr. Gale observes 

2. It renders { katharismos) purification, always performed 

by sprinklings. (See John ii, 6; Heb. ix, 13, 19, 21;E'umber8 
viii, 7; xix, 13-15, ) by baptism. 

3. It never renders baptize by immerse or any word equiva- 
lent to dip. 

4. It renders baptidzo famak, which Castell renders, " to be 
baptized, to baptize." ITeither he norllottinger renders it by 
dip, plunge or immerse. It is the same as tamash in other 

*■ Dan. iv. — Conspergatur — infunderis. 

t Eeflect. on WaU's Hist. Inf. Bap. Letter V. vol. H, 118 Ed. of 1862. 



276 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Hephil form — derivative meauing — by plunge, wet, dip, wash, 
and gives Ps. vi, 7, "baptized my couch with my tears," as his 
first proof text.* It is kindred with tamal also, which never 
implies immersion, but constantly applies to affusions. It 
renders John v, 4 : ix, 7, Siloam, " where people washed, by 
baptizing," as the Syriac. Castell gives both plunge and mois- 
ten — rigavit, always affusion — as meanings of tamash. 

5. This version renders baptidzo by mo, moi — " water." It is 
the same root with moh — " sprinkled with water, pour, rain, 
water, juice, fluid, water."t m^ho, moisten, pour. Here is 
one of the words translated from baptidzo that simply means 
to water, without specif^^ing mode, while the same word 
essentially — same root, means to sprinkle with water, water, 
pour, rain. So testifies this great author. 

The Ambaric — a later version — renders it as the one just 
noticed generally, and need not to be noticed separately. 

The Coptic. 

The Coptic was executed in the third century, and is of 
great value, being made so near the apostolic age. It ren- 
ders : 

1. Bapto by sprinkle. Rev. xix, 13. 

2. Renders baptidzo^ baptize by tamaka, same as above in 
Ethiopic — a word of affusion, not of immersion. It is kin- 
dred also with tanoriy moisten, make wet.J 

3. It renders it by tomaSj same as tamash, which see above» 

Egyptian. 

The Egyptian of the third century renders baptidzo by ottis^ 
same root as Arabic ama(ia — sprinkle, make wet, wash, baptize. 

* Hephil ( of tamash )inersity tinxit, intinxit, lavit, p. 6 [7] liqnefaciam. 

t Castell aqua perfusus est, pluviam fudit, . . . aqua . . . aquam, etc. 
— no immersion. Hottinger — tinxit, baptizavit, moisten, baptize. 

Ethiopic, m'ho liqueseere, hquefieri, fundi. — Castell, 2003, 

t Huuiectatus est, hum^idus, humeetavit, — Castell. 



Mode of Baptism. 277 

Oriental Versions — same word. Schindler renders it in 

Basmuric. 

The Basmuric belongs also to the third century. 

1. Bapto is rendered sprinkle as well as dip. 

2. Transfers haptidzo. Sahidic. 

The Sahidic of the second century, and executed by the 
converts of the apostles, or co-laborers. It is of great value, 
but simply transfers baptidzo as it relates to the ordinance. 
There is no doubt that, could we get copies of the Sahidic, and 
ancient Basmuric and Egyptian, as we have conveniently the 
Ethiopic, Arabic, Syriac, our labors would be as richly com- 
pensated as they have been in those languages. The Sahidic 
renders bapto sprinkle as well as dip, but in no instance does 
the dip submerge or envelope the object in these cases^ 

' Persic. 

The Persic renders baptidzo by several words. It has a word 
(gutha) meaning emphatically to immerse. See Golius in 
Oastell, p. 408. But it never renders baptidzo by it or any 
word implying immersion. It renders baptidzo — 

1. By sustan, shustidan^ thus defined in Golius' lexicon. 
Washing, baptism; to wash, (besprinkle, cleanse); washing, 
cleansing, baptize. [Lavacrum^ Baptismus, Lavare; Gen; xvii, 
4; xix,.2; Ex. ii, 5; John iii, 25, (lotio)^ lotus, John xiii, 10, 
baptizare, Matt, iii, 6-13. — Oastell. 

2. It renders it by shuhar, shue, to give a bath or administer 
a washing [pour water for it] to fall in drops of water, dis- 
till; to baptize. \_Lavandum dare, Stillare; * * Baptizare,— 
CastelL 

3. It renders purifying, John iii, 25, by baptism. 

4. Baptidzo is translated into the word used. Exodus ii, 5, 
washed, epi, at the river; Gen. xviii, 4, where it was with "a 
little water;" in John xiii, 10, where Christ washed their feet, 
unquestionably by applying the water; for he would not 
plunge all their feet into the same basin, in " unclean " water. 
It was water "upon^' the feet. Luke vii, 38-9-44. 

Let us now see how amad was used in the ancient Syriac 
literature and couuxcils. 



278 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The Lutheran version 1522 renders baptidzo by 

1. Taufen^ to baptize, without implying mode. But when 
the version was made, sj>rinkling and ^pouring were the general, 
yea, universal practice. This all acknowledge, and A. Camp- 
bell says so, quoting Erasmus, f Luther poured the water on 
the infant's head when he said, " JcA taufe eueh mit wasser.'^ It 
is downright dishonesty to pretend that by taufen he and the 
various German translators meant dip, whatever may have 
been its former force. AVith them it neither meant dip, 
sprinkle nor pour, but was used as the Latins used baptidzo, and 
tingo for baptize. 

2. In 2 Kings, v, 14, tabal — baptidzo ; Luke xi, 38 ; Mark vii, 
4, baptidzo is rendered waschen. 

3. Bapto is rendered in Rev. xix, 13, sprinkle b^esprengt. 

The Lusitanian version renders both words in the same 
places the same — baptidzo, wash — bapto, sprinkle. 

The Jerusalem Targum renders rachats, (" wash, pour,") by 
taval and tabal by rachats, the latter also by '' washed their 
face with tears," Gen. 43, 30. This shows that these words 
were words of affusion. 

The Arabic and the Targum render Ps. vi, 6, 7, " wet my 
couch with my tears," brecho with the word that translates 
baptidzo and tabaL 

It is useless to multiply facts. The sum of all is this: 

1. For fifteen hundred years after the Christian Era, not a 
single version made from the original Scripture, supports a 
case of immersion. 

2. Every version made, supported affusion, and with over- 
whelming force. We have not quoted Wickliffe and several 
German versions falsified by Conant as made from the Greek. 
They were all made from the Latin, and hence have nothing 
to do with baptidzo or bapto. They would support us, especially 
Wickliffe, who has baptize, wash, and for the aspersa of 
Jerome, sprinkle. But Wickliffe never saw a Greek Testa- 

tChris. Baptisms, p. 192, "Erasmus, who spent some tim.e in England,, 
during the reign of Henry VHI., observes, 'With us, [the Dutch], tt» 
baptizedj. have the water poured on them. In England they are dipped.' '* 



Mode of Baptism. 



279 



ment. The same applies to the Rheims, as to its use, mad-e 
from the Latin. 

1. We began with the plain, English version made by im- 
mersionists, and the record is so clear in favor of affusion, that 
their partiality could not destroy it. 

2. We appealed to Bapto, the root of the word, and found 
sprinkle to be its primary meaning. 

3. We appealed to baptidzo (1) in lexicons, and affusion was 
unanimously sustained, (2) in the classics, and infallibly cer- 
tain sprinkle appeared as the primary meaning, of the word. 
(3) The fathers were summoned, and they sustained affusion. 

4- We turned to the Hebrew, the Semetic family of lan- 
guages, and sprinkle was found to be the primary meaning of 
baptize. 

5. We appealed to the Hebrew customs, and Rabbins, and 
they sustained affusion overwhelmingly. 

6. We called in the grand army of versions, and the field 
of controversy was swept, and affusion remained in absolute 
possession of the field. 

7. The testimony of the learned critics. Doctors of Theology 
ancient and modern, annotators, commentators and antiqua- 
rians, and they, in crushing numbers, rally to the cause. 

Affusion is the only absolutely established form of 
Apostolic baptism. — [ Time out ] 



s6o The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' THIRTEENTH SPEECH. 

Argument. 

Mr. President : — -It was to prevent all this useless discussion 
as to where we are to look for the primary, grammatical, real 
signification of our terms, that I collated from the highest 
sources, those rules of interpretation which I presented in my 
first speech, and to which, at the very outstart, my opponent 
cordially assented. He has been going back upon them from 
his first speech. They are nevertheless the rules that must 
govern this discussion, and by which I shall examine all the 
lexicographers I produce in this court. Let it then be dis- 
tinctly borne in mind, that the first meanings given by the 
lexicons are the primary and literal meanings, and therefore, 
as Ernesti, Morus and Stuart agree, the only real ones, what- 
ever their etymology may seem to demand or their " historical 
jTrimaries " may have been. 

I. CLASSIC GREEK. 

In opening the lexicons, allow me to quote two statements 

of Prof. Toy, of Greenville Seminary: 

"1. Lexicons are authoritative and valuable only as they establish 
meanmgs given by quotations from approved authors. 

"2. One good lexicon will be worth more than a host of inferior ones. 
A mere array of unauthoritative lexicons counts for little among scholars." 

I here give notice that I shall, for the most part, give only 
the primary or literal meanings, for with these only we have to 
do in ascertaining the literal usiis loquendi of baptidzo. Eld. 
Ditzler, you will find, universally gives the metaphorical 
meanings, never the primary, unless called upon to do so, and 
I therefore challenge every one of his lexicons and Greek 
authors unless he gives the text and the definitions preceding the one 
he selects. 

By general consent the three most authoritative German- 
Greek lexicons are those of Stephanus, Schleusner, and Post 



Mode of Baptism. 281 

& Palm. The three best English lexicons are those of Liddell 
& Scott, Robinson, and Sophocles, latest editions. These six 
are as good as sixty inferior ones. 

LiDDELii & Scott. — '■'■Baptidzo. To dip in or under water; of ships 
to sink them ; ehaptisan ten polin, metaphorical of the crowds who flocked 
into Jerusalem at the time of the siege: — Pass., to bathe; hoi bebaptis- 
inenoi, soaked in wine, Lat., vino madidi; ophlemasi beb, over head and 
ears in debt ; meirakion baptizomenon, a boy drowned [overwhelmed] 
with questions. 2. lo draw water. 3. To baptized 

'■'- Baptisma, baptism. Baptismos, a dipping in water; baptism. Bap- 
tistes, one that dips; a baptizer. ho bapt. the Baptist.^ ^ 

Sophocles — (Greek Lex. of the Roman and Byzantine periods, B. C 
146. A. D. 1100—1870.) ''To dip, to immerse.^'' 

Sophocles, in effect, says that haptidzo was used by the Greek 

only in the sense of imwxrse, and that the writers of the 'New 

Testament knew no other sense. 

RoST & Palm — ''Baptidzo. Oft wiederholt eintauchen, untertauchen ; 
dan benetzen anbeuchten begiessen." "Baptidzo. To dip in, or under, 
often and repeatedly, hence to wet, moisten, pour over." 

All can see that "to wet," "to moisten," is given as the effect 

of the act, and is not a definition. 

Robinson. — "Baptidzo. A frequentative in form but not in fact ; to im- 
merse, to shik. 2. To wash, to cleanae by washing ; trans. Mid. and aor. 1 
pass, in middle sense, to wash one's self, to bathe, to perform ablution. 3. To 
baptize, to adm,inister the rite of baptism,, either that of John or of Christ. 
Pass, and Mid., to be baptized, or to cause one's self to be baptized, i, e., generally 
to receive baptism." 

DoNNEGAN. — "Baptidzo. To immerse repeatedly into a Hquid; to sub- 
merge — to soak thoroughly, to saturate." 

Here "to soak" or "saturate" is the effect of the act, 

StephANTJS. — "Baptidzo. Mergo, seu immergo,ut quoe tingendi, aut abluendi 
gratia aquce immergimus. (To immerse or immerge, as things which we 1m- 
mierse for the sake of dyeing or washing in water.) Mergo, i. e., 
Submergo, obruo aqua. [To immerse, i. e. to submerge, to overwhelm in water.]" 

SCHLEUSNER. — Baptidzo. 1. Proprie', immei^go, ac intingo,in aquam '>nergo, 
a BAPTO, et respondet Hebraico tabal, 2 Kings V, 14. (Properly to immerge 
and dip in, to immerse into water, from bapto ; and it answers to the Hebrew 
iaval2K. V, 14.)" * * * 

Parkhiirst. — "Baptidz9. 1. To dip, immerse, or plunge in water. 2. Bap- 
tizomui. Mid. and Pass., to wash one^s self, be washed, wash that is, the hands 
by immersion or dipping in water. The Seventy use baptizomai, Mid. for 
washing one's self by l?7imersion. 3. To baptize, to immerse in, or wash with^ 
■o.ater in token of piav.fication from sin, ayidfy^om spiritual pollution. 



282 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

'■^Baptisma. 1. An immersion or waahing with water. 2. Bapti.-m or iynmer- 
sio7i in grievous and overwhelming offlictions and sufferings. Baptismos. An 
im,mersion or washing in water. ^^ 

SCHREVELIUS. — "BaptidzO. Baptidzo, merge, ablico, lavo. (To baptize 
immerse, wash off, batlie. ) 

^^Baptisma. Immersio, tinctiOj baptisma. (Immersion, dipping, baptism.)" 

WRiGHT. — ^^Baptidzo. I dip, immerse, plunge, saturate, baptize, over- 
whelm." 

Leigh. — '■'■Baptidzo. . . The native and proper signiiication of it is, to 
dip into water, or to plunge under water. Baptisma. 1. Dipping into water ^ 
or loashing with water ^ often." 

Greenfield. — ^^ Baptidzo. To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink." 

EwTNG. — 'Tts primary signification, I cover with water, or some other 
fluid. 1. I plunge into, or sink completely under water." 

HederiC. — '■^Baptidzo. Mergo, immergo^ aqua ohnio. 2. Abluo, lavo. 3. 
Baptidzo. (To immerse, immerge, overwhelm in water. Baptisma. Im- 
mersio, tinctio.) Immersion, dipping into." 

Scapula. — ^^ Baptidzo. Mergo^ seu immergo. (To immerse or immerge.) 
Item tin go ; ut quae tingendi^ aut ab uendi gratia aqucB imm.ergimus ; (also to 
immerse, as we inamerse things for the sake of dyeiug or washing tbem. 
in water;) item m,ergo, submergo, obruo aquae. Also to immerse, to 
submerge, to overwhelm in water.) Baptismos et Baptisma. Mersio, Loiio, 
Ablutio, ipse immergendi, item lavendi, seu abluendi actus. ) Immersion, wash- 
ing, washing clean ; the act itself of immersing ; also of washing, or 
washing clean.)" 

SUIDAS. — ^'■Baptidzo. Mergo^ Immergo, Tingo, Intingo, Madefacio, Ixtoo, 
Abluo, Purgo. (To immerse, to immerge, to dip, to dip in.)" 

ScHOETTGEN. — " Baptidzo fromBapto ; properly to plunge, to immerse, or 
plunge in water." 

DuxBAE. — ^^ Baptidzo. To dip, immerse, submerge, plunge, sink, over- 
whelm ; to sink." 

Laing. — ^*Baptidzo. To baptize, to plunge in water." 
Morel. — '''■Baptidzo. 1. Mergo, immergo, aqua obruo. (To immerse, to 1m - 
merge, to overwhelm in water." 

Bass. — ^^ Baptidzo. To dip, immerse, plunge in water ; to bathe one's 
self; to be immersed in sufferings and afflictions." 

T. S. Green. — ^^ Baptidzo, pr., to dip, immerse, to cleanse or purify by 
washing ; to administer the rite of baptism, to baptize. 

" Baptismos. Act of dipping or immersion ; a baptism, an ablution.' 

" Baptisma, pr., immersion ; baptism, ordinance of baptism." 

SuiCER says that " bapto signifl.es to dip, to dye by dipping; hence he 
is said baptein udrian (to dip a bucket) who draws water out of a well or a 
river, which cannot be done unless the whole bucket is immersed under 
water. Wool and garments are said baptesthai (to be dipped,) because 



Mode of Baptism. 383 

they are entirely immersed in the dyeing vat, that they may imbibe the 
color. Baptidzo has, very properly the same signification in the best 
writers. Baptidztin eauton eis thalassan, in the ancient poet, is, ' To plunge 
himself into the sea.' From the proper signification of the verb, baptisma 
or baptismos properly denotes immersion, or dipping into." 

Grove. Baptidzo. To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge." 
Jones. — ^^ Baptidzo. I plunge^ plunge in water, dip, hsiiptize ] plunge in 
sleep, bury, overwhelm. Baptisma. Immersion, ,,baptism, plunging in 
affliction." 

StOETUS. — Baptidzo. Generatim acvi vocis intinctionis ac immersionis baptidzo 
notionem obtinet. Spec latim propria est immergere ac intingere in aquam. (Gen- 
erally, and by force of the word, it has the idea of dipping in and im- 
mersing. With special propriety is it to immerse and to dip into 
water.") 

Robertson. — Baptidzo. Mergo lavo. (To immerse, to wash [or bathe.]" 

ScHWARZius. — " Baptidzo. To baptize, to immerse, to overwhelm, to 
dip into." [To authenticate this as the immary meaning of the term, he 
adduces the following authorities : Polybius, iii. c. 72 ; v. c. 47 ; Dio. 
xxxviii. p. 84 ; xxxvii. extr., p. 64 ; i. pp ;492, 502, 505. Porphyrius de 
Styge p. 282. Diodorus Siculus i. p. 33. Strabon, vi. p. 421. Josephus 
Bell. Judd. p. 259. Josephus Antiq. ix. c. § 2,] " To wash by immeFS- 
ing. Luke xi. 38; Matt. vii. 4." 

MiNTERT. — Baptidzo. To baptize ; properly, indeed, it signifies to plunge, 
to immerse, to dip into water ; but because it is common to plunge or dip 
a thing that it may be washed, hence also it signifies to wash, to wash 
(dean. Baptismos. Immersion, dipping into, washing, washing clean. 
Properly, and according to its etymology, it denotes that washing which 
is performed by immersion." 

Pasor. — ^^ Baptidzo; Immergo, abluo. (To immerse, to wash clean)."— 
Ingham. 

ALESTEDrus.— '* Baptidzein signifies only to immerse ; not to wash, ex- 
cept by consequence." — Ibid. 

Bretschneider. — " In baptidzo is contained the idea of a complete im- 
mersion under water. An entire immersion belongs to the nature of 
baptism. ' ' — Ibid. 

Ast, in his Platonic Lexicon, renders baptidzo by " obruo opprimo (To cover 
over, to oppress or overwhelm.)" — Ibid. 

Replication. 

I regret that I am so often compelled to go back to repeat 
and re-discuss points which were presented two or three days 
ago. It certainly is not chargeable to me or to my method. 
It is because my opponent, as a rule, keeps either two or three 
davs in advance of me, anticipating my argumentj ov as 



284 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

many days in the rear, bringing up matter, and suggesting 
difficulties which he should have noticed at the time. He 
does this to distract and confuse me in the symmetrical pre- 
sentation of my argument, and to break its force on the 
minds of the hearers. He pursues this method to gain time 
to prepare his defence. If he is indeed doing the best he can, 
I ought not to complain, but I wish it were otherwise, since 
this constant repetition is tiresome to the hearers, as it will be 
to the readers of this discussion. He opened his speech discuss- 
ing the government of the dative, a matter which I presented 
to his notice, in my speech three days ago, but he develops no 
principle, and refers to no established grammatical rules that 
govern the construction of the dative with or without the 
preposition en. He says it '' will do for children" to talk about 
the dative being used without en — the preposition e??., in ans- 
wer to the question i^Aere? OY whereint the place or element 
in which a thing is said to be, or be done! Yet, for this I 
gave the highest grammatical authority, as Matthise, and no rule 
is better known to grammarians. My opponent appears to 
claim that there are no fixed rules that compel the rendering 
of the dative, either with or without a preposition, denoting 
locality where, or element in which, an act is said to be per- 
formed, but our own fancy — that it may be rendered with, or 
in, or on, or at, or by, to suit our taste, or our creed ! Should 
I pass by all this here, he would claim that I admitted its 
truth, when nothing is further from the fact. There are 
certain well known and fixed grammatical rules that o:overn the 
construction of language, and infallibly guide us in the 
proper rendering of foreign tongues, as the Greek, and to 
violate these rules, is to misconstrue and misinterpret the 
language; therefore we are not at liberty to translate sentences 
as we please. These rules are based upon the common usage 
of Greek writers, and by them we must be governed. 

IsTow it is a fixed rule, that when the preposition eis is placed 
before the name of an element or object, that entrance from 
without to a point within is indicated, and it must be so ren- 
dered — e. g.^ dthentese eis ton oikon — entering into the house; 
phfuge eis Aigiqjton — fi:ee into Egypt. " Kai eis to j^iir ebale kai 



Mode of Baptism. 285 

m hudaten" — it hath cast him into the fire and into the water. 
'' Elthein eis ten geenan eis to pur " — " to go into hell, into the 
fire," etc. These cases illustrate what I mean when I say 
that the grammatical construction compels us to translate 
phrases in a certain manner. We are not at liberty to trans- 
late eis in these cases by any secondary meaning we may 
please to select, as on, upon, at, near by, but by into ; therefore, 
the rule that eis with a verb of motion before the accusative of 
the object or element expresses fully the act of passing from 
one element into another. Therefore we are compelled to 
render such expressions as these " ebapthisthe eis ton Jordanen,'' 
Mark i, 9, "was immersed into the Jordan." ^^Kai ehalen heauton 
eis tenthalassen,'' John xxi, 7 — Peter girding his coat unto him, 
" cast himself into the sea." 'Now apply this rule to the 
several Examples cited from Conant, which are contested by 
Elder Ditzler, No. 65, given to Agamemnon's case — ^'Kai bap- 
tidzon eis ten Copaidanlimnen," and iplunging, immersing himself 
into lake Copais." The directions to the man of bad dreams, 
Example 64, '* baptison seauton eis thalassen,'' immerse, plunge 
thyself into the sea ; also, in Example 70, baptidzem holin es 
[for m] gala gunaiJcos/' etc., "immerse again into breast-milk 
and Egyptian ointment." Thus have I, by this induction of 
cases, given him the demanded proof that will satisfy any 
scholar, that in all the above cases, the subject did pass from 
without to a point entirely within the place or enveloping 
element, and consequently that Agamemnon did pass " clear 
under" the waters of the charmed lake, and yet he survived, 
disproving Elder Ditzler's oft-repeated assertion. 

I^ow, let us notice again the rule that governs en with verbs 
denoting motion, or rest in a place. The preposition en, 
denotes that one thing is in or upon another, "it indicates an 
actual union or contact of two objects." — Kuhner's Gr.,p. 233, 
§ 164^, and always puts the noun in the dative. 

The invariable rule is, that, with such verbs : 1st. When, 
time when, place where, or element in or within which anything 
is said to be, or to be enveloped the object must be put in the 
dative usually, with, but often, without the preposition — if 
without the preposition en, is understood, and the rendering 
must be in, or within. 



286 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Let us apply this plain rule to cases involved in this dis- 
cussion : 

1. '■'■En de tais hemerais ekeinais.^^ — Matt, in, 1, 

This is evidently time when, and must be rendered, not 
with or after, or before, but in those days. 

2. " Kerusson en te eremo Matt. Hi. 1 — not preaching with, or 
on, or at, but evidently implying place where, locality, and it 
must be rendered in the wilderness. 

3. " ebaptizonto en to Jordane.'' Matt. Hi. 6 — here evidently 
place where or within which the act was performed is indi- 
cated and we are not at liberty to translate it " near by," "on" 
or "at" or "with," but "were baptized in the Jordan. 

4. So the statement " Kai ebaptizonto pantes en ton Jordane po- 
tonto" Mark i. 5 — place "where" or "in which," being clearly 
indicated, we may not render it on, at, by, or with, but we 
are compelled to translate it in the river Jordan. 

6. " JEgo men baptidzo kumas en kudatf' Matt. iii. 11, kvdati 
here is evidently a noun of element, earth, air, fire, water are 
elements, not instruments, and therefore the sentence may not 
be rendered, I indeed baptize you with water but in water. 

6. Again, ^' Autos humas baptizei en jmeumati hagio Kai purV^ 
Matt. iii. 2 — the Holy Spirit here is by metonymy put for his 
gracious influences into which they were to enter and by which 
they would be surrounded, enveloped, pervaded. Therefore the 
element in which the baptism is performed cannot be grammati- 
cally rendered, by, with, on, but in the Holy Spirit, and m fire. 
Kai connecting, puri with, pneumati the preposition need not be 
repeated, but is understood. It is easy to tell whether locality 
or dement is indicated. 

Then there en is before the dative of cause, manner and instru- 
ment, which is also distinguished without the least difficulty, and 
this is also with or without a preposition, and en before such a 
noun is attracted from its native signification and rendered with 
— e. g., ""en rahdo eltho pros humos^' 1 Cor. iv, 21. " Shall T come 
to you with a rod " — instrument. " e. en agape pneumati te prai 
tetosf "or in love ?" — element--" and in the spirit of meekness ?" 
here influence and not instrument is indicated, and therefore 



Mode of Baptism. 287 

it is Dot rendered with^ but in. I do not intend to be lead back 
to the discussion of these Scriptures, satisfied as I am that 
I have elucidated them to the comprehension of the youngest 
accountable being, and, leaving them, I wish to call your atten- 
tion to the oft avowed statements of my opponent concerning 
the three principal words that enter into this question, viz., 
en, eis, and baptidzo. 

He has just denied what he admitted the first day. 

1. That in is not the primary meaning of en. He now says : 
" There is no proof as to the primary meaning of en." 

2. He emphatically denies that into is the primary meaning 
of eis, — never, when it is used in connection with baptism. 

3. He also affirms that to dip, or to immerse is not the pri- 
mary meaning of baptidzo — " that it never means dip," especially 
so when it refers to Christian baptism. 

Kow, does it not strike you Mr. President, as remarkably 
strange that these words are inveterately afflicted with the 
hydrophobia when they are brought in sight of the river 
Jordan, but complacent and very naturally disposed in all 
other localities? 

Touching what are, and what are not primary significations 
philologically considered, there can be no controversy at this 
stage of the discussion. We agreed at the outset to abide by 
the decision of Ernesti,Morus, Home, and Stuart, as laid down 
in our Rules of Interpretation, viz., the}^ are the first defi- 
nitions given in the lexicons, and these alone are the true, 
jproper and real, and must decide the definition of baptidzo. He 
has discovered that these rules will be a two-edged sword 
in my hand to slay him, and hence he has fought them from 
the hour the light broke on his mind. 

Having clearly defined the rule for the construction of the 
dative, let us now notice Elder Ditzler's revised and improved 
versions; his translations of, and criticisms on, the Examples 
I submitted from Conant's Baptidzein: 

1. He says he has examined my thirty-ninth Example and 
*' found it damagingly against me." What will Conant and 
Greek scholars think of this statement when I show them that 



2 88 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

by a palpable mistranslation and misunderstanding of the 
original, he makes out his bill of damages to the satisfaction 
of his admiring friends ? He says " the ship was baptized, but 
not immersed, but ju3t about to be — ^. e. sunk," etc. I will 
give the text, to make plain his error, to all who can read 
either Greek or English. 

Example 39. 

Here is the Greek text : 

Ede de baptidzomenoon kai kata dunai mikron apoleipontoon, 

epecheiroun ten prooten enoi toon les toon eis t£n edian autoon meteis 

bainein alcaton: 

" And already fiecormw^r immerged {baptized), and wanting little of 
sinking, some of the pirates at first attempted to leave, and get aboard of 
their own bark." 

IlTow, instead of the shij) being baptized, the text says the 
pirates already becoming immersed, and wanting a little of 
sinking — i. e. about to drown by being so often immersed, 
some of them attempted to leave the vessel they had seized 
and could not manage, and get back on their own. Now I 
respectfully ask whose cause and whose scholarship does this 
translation and criticism " damage ? " To what shall I attrib- 
ute this palpable mistranslation and misconstruction? 

His version of Example 16 is rather an improvement on his 
former criticism, for hitherto, the ship was not immersed, for 
had it been so, the barbarians were really running under the 
water in confusion, but he now concludes that the ship was 
really baptized and went to the bottom. Well, this is some- 
thing gained, for we have here one of the definitions of hap- 
tidzo given by Schleusner, to sink in the sense of to destroy — 
in which sense he saj^s it is never used in the New Testament 
— but in that of, to dip. 

I must again notice his disposition of the 22 Example I 
gave to disprove his declaration that, "in all classic Greek not 
an instance can be produced where a living being was im- 
mersed who survived." He affirmed yesterday that, according 
to the Greek text, the heads of the soldiers were never under 
the water while they were baptized! To the text, tlien, we 



Mode of Baptism. 289 

must again appeal. Here are the words: '^ Kai sun autois 
ebaptizonto skaphesiJ^ "And they were immersed or sub- 
merged with their vessels." Do you say sprinkle or pour idth 
their vessels, as you would have John sprinkle the people with 
water? How sprinkle or pour the soldiers with vessels! 

But their vessels were submerged. Elder Ditzler admits 
this, therefore the very same verb submerged the sailors, but 
all did not perish, for rising to the surface, they were over- 
taken and killed. He returns, feebly indeed, to Example 16. 
He defines now aei by ''all the time," "■ baronutes^' by immers- 
ing — in Elder Ditzler's sense — " sinking down under the 
water," " sinking to the bottom and remaing there, to drown." 

His revised translation, then, seems to be : All the time 
sinking him down to the bottom, and holding him there — 
''they baptized his face so it sufibcated him!" Shades of 
classic Greeks, did you ever hear the like of this? 

Conant's translation is literally correct. I would render 
aei, on the authority of Schleusner, soepe, "frequenter," 
frequently pressing him down, and dipping him as if in sport, 
they did not desist till they had entirely suffocated him." 

Here are frequent immersions, before death ensued, as there 
were in the dipping match of King Philip with the Pancra- 
tiast, in Example 156, which explains the sport in which 
Aristobulus perished. 

His last notice of Example 59, is brief indeed. " How 
could they be immersed hy haptidzo here, when kataduno, "im- 
merse," has to come after to immerse them." If he would 
only be willing to use haptidzo in the sense this author 
evidently does, and as all Greek authors do, he would have 
no trouble in understanding the record. The soldiers all 
immersed themselves, and sank do\'. .iito the pits — to the 
bottom if you will — for kataduno denotes — a sinking deeper 
than haptidzo, which simply puts them "clean under;" but 
they did not all remain submerged, though some did ; the 
majority rose to the surface, but were rendered useless, by 
being saturated with mud and water — while many perished. 

This example also disproves his assertion that nc living 
being ever survived an immersion effected by haptidzo, 
19 



290 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

He admits that he had his accusative and dative badly mixed, 
and the fox's tail in place of the toio that was dipped in'oil and 
bound to it in Example 86; but his friends were far better 
satisfied vvith it as " an able and most triumphant reply," than 
they seem with to-day's effort ! He now renders it the tow 
was baptized with oil, but unfortunately stiipeion tow is not 
the subject but the direct object of the verb haiotidsas^ and elaio 
is the simple dative of element in, or within which the act 
denoted by the verb took place. Apply the rule governing 
the dative which I have explained in order to meet this and 
other cases, and we are compelled to translate this as Conant 
has, "dipping the tow in oil," etc. There is no avoiding the 
conclusion. 

To convince all that this is not a mere partisan translation, 
I call your attention to the translation of similar cases by 
Stuart whose learning you have heard my friend extol so highly. 

" They dip the wool themo [Dative of element] in warm watei-" 
— Aristophanes Ecdes. 

'^Hudati baptidzesthi [which he gives as dative of element 
and translates by the rule] is plunged in water." 

Another from Strabo, which he translates " dipped oistois 
in the gall of serpents." 

Dr. Conant gives one in Example 79 which has the preposi- 
tion expressed '^ that like as wool haptisthen en hammati [the dative 
of element] dipped in dye" etc. 

Elder Ditzler declares on his scholarly reputation that 
Example 71 was no case of dipping — the hot iron was cooled 
by sprinkling water upon it. Let us examine it. 

Example 71. 

Someric Allegories^ ch. 9.* The writer explains the ground of the alle- 
gory (as he regards it) of Neptune freeing Mars from. Vulcan, thus : 

"Since the mass of iron, drawn red hot from the furnace, is plunged 
(baptized) in water ; and the fiery glow, by its own nature quenched with 
water, ceases." 

The text in question stands thus "/^o ion siderou miuh-os hel- 

* The work of an old Greek grammarian, of uncertain date ; attributed 
(falsely) to Heraclides Ponteciis, fourth century before Christ. 



Mode of Baptism. 291 

kustheis hudati baptidzetaU^ Here we evidently have the simple 
dative of element in or within which the act was performed, 
and therefore I render it dipped or plunged in water &c. He 
says this could not have been the mode for the hot mass of 
iron would have thrown all the water out of the tub; and ruined 
the iron. I wish to take the testimony of Stuart (Pedobaptist) 
as a scholar, and then leave it to all the blacksmiths present, 
to decide the case by their practice. 

Heraclides Ponticus, a desciple of Aristotle, Allegor. p. 495, says : When 
apiece of iron is taken red hot from the fir e^ and PLUNGED in the water ^ the heat 
being quenched hy the peculiar nature of the water j ceases. — Stuavt. 

Again " iron "plunged into water in order to harden it." 

The learned Gesner translated this very 71st Example which 

Eld. Ditzler says is no case of dipping thus: 
*' Siquidem ignea ferri massa, fornicibus extract!, aqua, inunergitur." 
" If indeed the fiery mass of iron drawn from the furnaces 

is immersed in water." 

The Latin smiths doubtlessly cooled iron as the Greeks did, 
and I remember a case or two that cannot be disputed. Speak- 
ing of the Cyclops forging the arms for ^neas, Virgil says: 
^^Alii stridentia tinguunt cera lacu.^^ "Others dip the hissing brass 
in the lake"- — i. e., the water of the lake^ 

Here is another. 

" Ensem Stygia candentem tinxerat unda^'' " had dipped — ^immersed-* 
the red-hot sword in the Stygian wave." 

]S"o scholar would read it otherwise. Thus the Latin smiths 

cooled their red-hot metals, and so we think the Greek smiths 

did also. 

Mr. President, my opponent complains that I have questioned 
his scholarship in this discussion. I have been compelled in 
protecting my argument, to question most ofhis translations and 
interpretations of authors, and by the rules governing the con- 
struction of the Greek, I have shown they were palpably incor- 
rect. ]^ow I have to attribute this to his lack of familiarity 
with the language or to a lack of honesty and fair dealing, and 
I charitably attribute it to the former. If he will but present 
authors fairly, translate them grammatically ^ and interpret them 
logically, he will have no occasion to complain of mc 



292 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

He is never done with Ezekiel, which I have noticed and 
protested against the use he makes of it. He seenris either 
inveterate! J mystified about it or is determined to mystify the 
niinds of others. "What does he now say ? that " the word purify 
in Hebrew is here translated in Syriac by baptize. In the Greek 
it is hrecko, sprinkling, rain. The mode is given. It needs 
no lexicon." E"ow, with all due courtesy, this is unmeaning 
jargon to me ; " translated in the Syriac by baptize ! " What does 
he mean? Is the word baptize in Syriac? Of course not, it is 
an English word. Does he mean bv the word amad. the onlv 
word that is used in the Syriac Version as the appropriate 
synonym of baptidzof If he means this, the statement cannot 
be justified by one single instance; tzeva, it is true, does mean 
to dip in Syriac, and figuratively, to wet, to moisten, in which 
sense it is doubtless used here, but let it be remembered that 
tzeva is never used in the Syriac Verson when describing or 
referring to Christian baptism, no more than bapto, to dip, is 
used in the Greek Testament, Avhen referring to the same rite. 
There are two other cases always used with great confidence by 
my opponent, (as he quotes it from his Louisville Debate,) to 
which I have time to allude but briefly. 

1. The one is found in Lightfoot's HorcB Heb. et Fat. Ill, 
292. The text is Hebrew, and I have not the book with me, 
and Elder Ditzler does not bring it forward, but translates the 
passage after his usual manner, giving but one word, taval, 
but makes it out to mean that Benaiah baptized himself at 
Siloam with little particles of hail which he melted in his 
hand ! I think he misrepresents the whole passage. I re-pro- 
duce it as he gave it: 

"Benaiah, "he one day struck his foot against a dead tortoise, and went 
down to Siloam, where, breaking all the httle particles of hail, he baptized 
himself, itahal). This was on the coldest day in winter.'' Kow the law, 
the New Testament, and Apocrypha all show this required baptism, and 
he did baptize himself. But surely he did not dip himself in "the little 
particles of hail" he melted in his hand." 

It is given as an instance of how scrupulously Benaiah, who 
had polluted himself by touching the dead tortoise, observed the 
law for purification from ceremonial uncleanness. That law 
required the bathing — immersion of the whole body. He 



Mode of Baptism. 293 

went down to Siloam, where, breaking all the ice, for it was 
in the depth of winter, he—tabalized — immersed himself. 
This was what the law of Moses — not of the New Testament — 
required, and this is what the verb t^val in Hebrew signifies, 
and nothingness than an imwxrsion. Comment is unnecessary. 

The next case is a more delicate one to noti-ce^ but fidelity to 
truth requires it. He translates it in his usual style, from the 
Oreek of Clement, so interloei^ted that nothin,^ certain can 
he made of it, but dogmatically asserts that it testifies that 
the Jews were wont to baptize themselves ^''epi koitm'^ upon 
a couch. 

The text in which epi hoUm o-ecurs^ is given in Braden and 
Hughey's Debate, and quoted by Elder Wilkes in the Louis- 
ville Debate, p. 61'9, and stands thus: 

''E dudrenamene kathara ehroil Imate echousa, he Penelope epi ten 
euchen her^hetaL Telemachos de, eheiras nips aimenos alos eucliete 
Athene, eithos toiitu Joiidaion os Kal to pollakis epi koitebaptidzesthai." 

Whieh I translate: '^ Having bathed herself and put on clean 

garments^ Penelope goes to prayer. But Telemachus having 

washed his hands at the surging sea, prays to Minerva. As 

this is the custom of the Jews, and that, generally, after the 

•couch — to immerse themselves — or take a Tbath." 

Epi^ generally means upon^and should this be insisted upon 
here, then it should be translated, upon sleeping, for hoitae is 
equivalent to the masculine koitos, or sleeping; and it is the 
-custom w^ith us to bathe after sleeping. If it is after the en- 
joyment of the bed, the marital or marriage bed,, a« some 
■critics think, then the law for the bath, the immersion of the 
whole body in water may be found in Lev. xv, 16-18. 

I here again protest against Elder Ditzler again referring to 
authorities in his loose unreliable manner, without producing 
the full original text of what he pretends to translate, I have 
seen enough, in these few days, to convince me that when he 
translates or construes language or lexicons to prove his asser- 
tion that the primary meaning of baptidzo is to sprinkle^ never 
to immerse, thsit he cannot be relied upon. 

As for the versions, I will take their testimony, after you 
Imve heard what lexicographers have to saj, — [ Time out 



294 The Great Carrollton Debate, 



DR. DITZLER'S THIRTEENTH REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — At last Dr. Graves brings up 
Ms lexicons — a motly^ mixed crowd — as miscellaneous in 
character^ and as unclassified as they are batched and garbled^ 
we will not; say intentionally, but in fact. I introduced mine 
on Greek in the first speech I made. He eomes up on the 
fourth day to quote them^ putting them out o^ all oraer. E'ow^ 
to show you what reliability can be placed in his array,, we 
take a few. , 

1. He makes Stephanas Scapula say baptidza is to "immerse 
things in water for the sake of dyeing,,'" etc. 1. Bofptidzo is 
never applied to dyeing', and Br. Graves knows it. 2. We 
never dip in water (agua) to dye. Thus he makes these old 
immersionist founders of lexicography talk mast silly. 

2. He quotes Suidas on hcqotidzo, " to immerse/' etc., ete. 
Now, Suidas, as I said in my opening speech, I think, does 
not define baptidzo, as D^r. Conant will tell him if he won't 
believe me. I know in Rice, etc., he is quoted thus, borrowed 
second hand, and it shaws haw immersionists spin out mean- 
ings to suit themselves, as he borrows it from them. Suidas 
only defines bapto, and gives it only one definition, viz : plurio-, 
to wash. Stephanus will show him that, if he never saw 
Suidas, 

3. He quotes Leigh. Leigh says just the reverse of what 
Dr. Graves quotes him as saying. That quotation is what 
another says, and Leigh quotes it to. show what both parties 
say. It is nat Leigh's definition. 

4. He leaves out the whole New Testament definition of 
Stephanus, so misquotes Schleusner as to make him say the 
reverse of what he said, as a perusal of him in my opening 
speech, where he is accurately and fully quoted, will show. 

Stokius is utterly perverted, as a perusal of his words in my 
first speech will show. He held that always m the OFdinaaee 



Mode of Baptism. 295 

in the N'ew Testament, it was wash, cleanse, and by affusion. 

Take now his report of Rost & Palm — a great work. He 
has it:" to dip in or under, often and repeatedly," etc. JSTow, 
1. Where does baptidzo mean " to dip in or under, often and 
repeatedly?" Find a case. Yet this is by odds the best lexi- 
con he has quoted. Post & Palm give " besprinkle" begelssen, 
"generally, to sprinkle upon (ubergeissen) to pour upon (uber- 
schuiteny as the meaning of baptidzo. And they use these 
very words to define such specific acts themselves, when de- 
fining other words meaning sprinkle, pour upon. Hence, 
with these exposures, we adopt Dr. Graves' word, and say, " I 
challenge every one of Dr. Graves' lexicons, every one of his ren- 
derings and quotations as wholes, and assert that they wholly 
misrepresent the facts. He has filed up more little glossaries, 
lexicons defining only the words used by a single author, 
giving only the meanings supposed to be intended by the 
writers. 

On classic usage. Dr. Graves took example 156 of Conant,to 
support dip. We need not reproduce the wbolo quotation. 
It tells of Philip wlio ran into the bath [hob'J/i!,:!.:Jfran) or pool. 
Here the Macedonians and he played at 11 niatclj of baptizing. 
^'Philip did not give over the (diabaptidzonienos) mutch, baptizing 
with the pancratiast, and sprinkling water in his face, until 
the soldiers, wearied out, dispersed." Here notice. 

1. It is not the simple isTew Testament word baptidzo^ but a 
compound word, intensified by a preposition, dia, one that 
very much intensifies a word. Hence, it is not a proof, even 
if it did imply dip here or immerse. 

2. It is the second century after Christ and tells nothing of 
the primary meaning. Though Philip lived before Christ, 
this writer, Polvnaeus, lived in the second century after 
Christ. 

3. It is evident they were not dipping each other, for to 
have continued as long as Polynaeus tells us they did, would 
have resulted in death. They evidently dashed water on 
each (^ther, and Philip sprinkled it in the face of the pancra- 
tiast as distinguished from the mutual dashing it on each 
other. It is no proof of dipping. It is against it. If it were, 



296 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

itisnotthe word nsecl for baptism any way, being cona- 
pouiided. ^[any words of affusion come to mean immersion 
compounded with dia, kata^ and the like. 

4. Conant takes the view we did, "that sprinkling water in 
the face/' " deprived of breath/' p. 76. This applied to Aris- 
tobulus. 

My brother is getting in earnest. This is the fourth day — 
it half ojone — it is full time to do, or trv to do, something. 

On classic Greek he reads, " a piece of red hot iron.'* It 
reads, "the mass of iron." So Conant translates it; ^' Since, 
now, the mass of red hot iron drawn out of the furnaces [or 
drawn out by the smiths], hiidati baptidzetai, is baptized with 
water." Who plunges a mass of iron, drawn red hot from the 
furnace, to temper it? It would explode all the water out of 
the tub all over the smiths. Bro. Home tells me he saw a 
man tempering, with water, a piece of iron, pouring water on 
it, the last few days. Ofttimes have I seen it. The result in 
classics is all one wav, all on our side. 

He says the best lexicon stands on the shoulders of all the 
rest. He may not have looked at half a dozen. He may not 
have examined the texts thev examined. But Passow, Rost 
and Palm, who made this great work, (issued vok i., 1841,) do 
stand on all the rest. He spoke as if Passow lived away back 
among the old authors; 1841 is not so far back quite. This 
great work gives " sprinkle," "sprinkle upon," '^pour upon;" 
the latter as its general use. Sophocles, whom Dr. Graves so 
eulogizes, only defines dark age Greek, gives dip as its first 
meaning, when it never means dip in classic Greek, as we have 
seen, and he quotes: "Baptize [dakrusi) in tears," he renders 
it. There is no in there. " Baptize with tears" is the Greek. 
So, Sophocles, an immersionist, is forced to support us. But 
what of the assertion that no lexicon gives sprinkle or pour 
as meanings of haptidzol What will you now do with that, 
seeing that the whole body of the best on earth of all ages do 
give sprinkle and pour, and of the ^ew Testament lexicons, 
all the standards, every one of the better class, Schleusner, 
Wahl, Schwarzius, Suicer, Leigh, Stokius, Robinson, etc? 

But Grimm, he says, gives merga^ immergoy etc., under bapto^^ 



Mode of Baptism. 297 

the root. We will soon test his accuracy and fairness, then. 
We will show that in no instance in ancient Greek did bapto 
merse, or immerse, objects. All immersionists agree that the 
texts are the ultimate and only reliable appeal. But the 
learned and most scientific of all the Greek grammarians, 
Kuhner, gives " ^m^e," and a host of others, give " moisten" as 
the primary meaning of hajpto. 

I read Stokius, and Schleusner, and Suicer, etc. They are 
in evidence just as they record it. Stokius gives wash, 
cleanse, as its only ITew Testament use as a rite. He declares 
thi^ {lotio vel oblutio) washing or cleansing could be and was 
accustomed to be accomplished [soleat) adspergendo aquam, by 
sprinkling the water (Mark vii., 4. ; Luke xi. 38) hence trans- 
ferred to the solemn rite of baptism, and then quotes the texts 
in the gospels where it occurs as the rite. He does not stop 
there, ^g tells us it designates the pouring out of the Spirit, 
" since anciently — i. e., since in the New Testament baptidzo 
applied to pouring, to affusion — the water was copiously 
poured on those baptized," hence baptidzo applied to the 
abundance of the gifts of the Spirit. We formerly, first 
speech, gave it in full, as also Schleusner. This author says 
immerse, dip, plunge in water, and answers to the Hebrew 
tab alin Si oertsiin place, eiud to tabha in certain ones; that is 
the translation of those words in the Seventy in certain places. 
But in this sense of the word, mere modal sense of dip, etc., 
it never occurs in the New Testament, but very frequently 
does in the Greek writers. We gave you the text in our first 
speech. He also gives pour forth — profimdo. Suicer gave 
wash as the New Testament use of baptidzo, and (per immer- 
sionem aut aspersionem) by immersion or sprinkling as the 
modes or form of baptism. But if I can't find a Greek writer 
supporting sprinkle, pour, lexicons amount to nothing it seems. 
But we showed that all earlier use was sprinkle and pour. He 
has never even noticed the texts we mainly adduced, not once. 
Then Origen and Basil applied baptidzo to a case where " pour 
on water" was the command, and they poured on four pitchers 
of water three times on an altar of stones, timber, and an ox 
on that. Dr. Graves puts in ^^ bathed." What did they bathe ? 



298 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Washing was for purification, not for bathing as a religious 
rite. Bathe don't save him, though it is a hiding of the mean- 
ing. People are bathed in tears, but not immersed. "We take 
shower baths ; what is the mode ? Pouring water over the 
fevered head, body, a limb ; sprinkling it on bathes such parts. 
what hiding behind ambiguous words ! It is as when a 
hawk darts by young turkeys; all run and stick their heads 
under the clods, and think they are hid. But let us now take 
up bajpto, the root of baptidzo, which gave baptidzo its first 
meaning. 

bapto the boot of baptidzo. 

It is unfortunate that Gale, Carson, Stuart, Beecher (Ed.) 
and the hosts of authors so confound bapto and baptidzo, first 
quoting the one then the other, so that the whole is a confused 
mass, and only the Greek scholar able to tell which is bapto, 
which is baptidzo ; and the other vices of these and all the rest 
— Drs. Dale, Conant, Ripley, A. Campbell, Vossius, Suicer, 
consist in disregarding the date of the writer, his merits as an 
accurate or less accurate exponent of language — in a word, 
in never noticing the fundamental principle that must be 
observed to have any claim to accuracy and truth in philology. 
Suffice to say, that on bapto, when treating of its primary 
meaning, that to be determined by " inspection of the pas- 
sages," the first Dr. Dale quotes is over twelve hundred years 
later than its first appearance in Homer, nearly eight hundred 
years later than when it appeared in ^schylus. Such has 
been the unscientific method on this subject. Is it a wonder 
no definite philological facts could be settled upon, but only 
some general surface facts seen, but not explained ? More of 
this will come up under baptidzo. To trace the primary mean- 
ing, then, of bapto, the universally admitted root of baptidzo, we 
will give all the earliest occurrences of the word that have been 
found, unless by accident some have passed our observation, 
which would not materially change the question : for nearly 
all of them have been the result of immersion research, and 
they were searching for help for their side. We begin giving 
a summary of the pains of M. Stuart and Dale, when produc- 
ing all they could on the word, they not noticing the ages in 



Mode of Baptism. 299 

which the authorities lived, Dale beginning with ^liau, A. D. 
third century. 

Dale's Summary on Bapto. — Dip, 14 ; dye, 14 ; imbue, 7 ; 
temper, 2 ; gild, 1 ; smear, 1 ; stain, 1 ; wash, 4 ; moisten, 2 ; 
wet, 1—47. 

1. Of these forty-seven cases of hajpto, we have thus thirty- 
three against fourteen for dip. 

2. Some of these cases are partial dips, a very slight and 
not total penetration of the element by the object said to be 
baptized. 

3. In not one is there a real immerse — i, e., sinking, 

4. All the oldest authorities fail to furnish a case of dip^ 
ov plunge, or immerse, as given by this learned scholar, who 
hesitated not to urge for dip as the primary meaning. We 
give his rendering of the oldest authorities: Homer, stain, 
temper ; ^schylus, temper ; Herodotus, wash ; Aristophanes, 
smear, wash, dye, dip ; Sophocles, stain, temper ; Euripides, 
stain; Aristotle, moisten; Plato, dye. This is a sample, 
though we may have not counted them as accurately as the 
other cases where more pains were demanded, fewer cases 
found, and where we took far more care for that reason. 

5. For five hundred years after bapto appears, no case of lit- 
eral dip, but stain where it is affusion, temper, wash. 

6. I^ext two hundred years only twice dip against a large 
majority pointing to affusion, aspersion as the modes by which 
the objects were stained, moistened, washed, etc. 

M. Stuaet, So strongly does he favor immersion that the 
Baptists boast that Pedobaptists will not publish his work, 
but they have done it. See Introduction by Eld. J. R. Graves 
to the Nashville edition of eighteen hundred and fifty-six. 

1. Of fifty-six occurrences, in classic Greek and non-Bibli- 
cal usage, he has it rendered dip, dye, color, smear, (Dr. Carson 
and others render it '^ smear,") thrust, bathe^ tincture, tinge, 
plunge, wash — ten renderings. He has 7 full dips, 9 where it 
was partial not total — 16 dip. This is 49 against 7 total dips, 
or 40 against 16 dips, partial and total,, 49 against 7 plunge, 
where it is doubtful There are three that are partial— not 



300 



The Great Carrolltox Debate. 



enveloped at all, 10 — i. e., 46 against 10 for plunge in any way, 
and 36 against the sum total of cases of dip and plunge — no 
case of immerse. 

If, as our opponents contend, current usage determines the 
primary meaning, dip is out of the question, and immerse does 
not even enter court for a plea. Henry Stephens, favoring 
immersion by prejudice and education, shows that moisten, 
stain, paint ifuco), prevail by odds over dip. He excels aU 
lexicographers by vast odds, in his details on bapto. But let 
us present the facts in scientific order by dates. 

From b. c. o^te thousaxb to b. c. five hundred — period five 
HUNDRED YEARS. Two Writers in this period use Bapto, each 
twice. 

1. Homer, B. 0. 1000 — popular date in round numbers. 
(1) Batrachrom. v. 218 : Of a frog pierced and slain in battle, 
"He fell, without even looking upwards, and the lake was 
(ebapteto) tinged with blood.'"' The blood spurting out — affu- 
sion — in small drops or sprinkling streams hapted the lake. 
Here, in the earliest use of bapto, the mode is not dipping, 
but affusion, and in a very slight way. A lake is bapted with 
the affusion of a few drops of blood. This gives us a clear 
insight into how dye, stain, color, came from hopto. (2) 
Odyssey, i. 302 : " As when a smith {baptei) tempers a hatchet 
or huge pole axe with cold water,"' or " in cold water.' Here 
bapto may be such a partial dip as we often witness in the 
shops where smiths temper an axe or hatchet. The edge is 
slightly dipped. Yet, from the allusion, it is possible it was 
the common case of a smith, putting cold water on the anvil 
and placing the hatchet or axe over it, hot, strikes with the 
hammer, when the report is tremendous, some times quite as 
loud as a gun. This is constantly done in tempering axes and 
hatchets. This is most likely Homers allusion. Any way, 
immersion is out of the question, and dip, even partial, very 
doubtful. 

^sch^dus, born B. C. 529, uses bapto twice. 1. ^' For the 
wife has deprived each husband of life (bapsasa) staining the 
sword bv slauo-hter." Prometh. v. 861. The mode involved 
in bapto here is easily dcteniiined. It does not say that the 



Mode of Baptism. 301 

sword is bapted into some penetrable matter — plunged in. It 
is stained, bapted, by the slaughter, cutting men's heads off, 
piercing their bodies, necks, etc., causing blood to effuse, pour 
out, be sprinkled upon earth, men and swords, gushed out 
upon them, by these processes the sword is stained., ^schy- 
lus used it again. 2. " This garment {ebaphaen) stained by the 
blood of ^gisthus, is a witness to me." Here, the sword in 
flicting a fatal wound, the blood spurts out and besprinkles 
the garment, or is effused upon the garment, and being a col- 
oring matter, not only moistens, but stains the garment. 

Now, I have examined the record of bapto from its first use 
to &ye hundred years. It occurs four times. Three of these 
four occurrences it applies to affusion, once it is doubtful as to 
niode. The facts overwhelmingly sustain affusion, sprinkling, 
as the primary import of the word. 

Bapto, the egot of baptidzo, from B. C. 500 till 429 B. C. 
From ^schylus to Plato, embracing Sophocles, Herodotus, 
Euripides, Aristophanes, Xenophon. 

1. Sophocles, born B. C. 495, Ajax v, 95. " Thou hast well 
[ebapsas) stained thy sword {pros) by means of [or with respect 
to] the army of the Greeks." Same as above. 

2. Herodotus, born B. C. 484 in Euterpe. 1. {bas epi ton 
potamon) " Going to the river he ebapse, washed himself." 
Exodus ii, 5. Pharoah's daughter went and *' washed (louo) 
herself at the river." It is of an Egyptian, Herodotus is speak- 
ing, and they washed (louo) always for the object there named. 
He did not dip at the river, but washed at the river, as we say 
at the spring, fountain or river. So Judith, xii, 7, washed 
[ep^] at the fountain. "The king's chariot was washed at the 
pool." 2. "Colored [babammena'] garments." This is the 
earliest case where ba2:)to Is used in the sense of dyed or col- 
ored, save where blood from wounds besprinkles and stains 
garments. It is six hundred years later than the use of bapto, 
to stain, in Homer; forty years later than ^schylus uses it 
for staining by sprinkling or pouring; hence, we see stain is 
not derived from dip, nor from dye, but dye is derived from 
stain, stain from sprinkle. From sprinkling and pouring, 
when applied to the water of a river, we see wash or cleanse. 



302 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. Earipides, born B. C. 480, uses hapto for dip where a 
backet, and where a pitcher, is dipped to get water. Where 
this is done most geuerally the pitcher, etc., is not submerged, 
but only partly put into the liquiids and suddenly withdrawn. 
"Dip a vessel and bring sea water.' "Dip up with pitchers." 
He uses it for plunge. " He \_ebapse'] plunged (his sounding 
scimitar) into the flesh." Later used thus, by Lycophron : 
" Plunged his sword into the viper's bowels." Dionysius 
Halicar; "Plunge [_bapsas'] his spear between the other's ribs." 
He "at the same instant plunged his into his belly." In all 
the strongest immersionists can adduce, there is no total im- 
mersion. While the whole sword, spear, etc., is spoken of as 
bapted,only a small part enters the vipers bowels, the body, 
etc., etc. 

4. Aristophanes, born about 450 B. C. (Conant), uses bapto 
unusuallv often not to have occasion, like Plato and Aristotle, 
to write on philosophy, nature, etc. 1. Speaking of Magnes, 
an old comic writer of Athens, he says: "Smearing himself 
[baptomenos] with frog colored [batracheiois] paints." Here the 
element coloring is applied to the person. N'o dip. Again: 
2. "Do not adorn yourself with garments of variegated ap- 
pearance, colored [baptoii'] at great cost." Here the colors seem 
to be the eifect, as often then occurred, of needle work, taking 
difierent colors and w^orking them into garments, bapting 
them thus. 3. Ornis baptos, in Aves, p. 526, "a colored 
bird," referring to a bird of variegated plumage. Later, 
Greeks and Hebrews, as well as Arabs, speak of " sprinkled 
with colors, ' "sprinkled with grey," etc. Later Greeks refer 
to stones, birds, animals, etc., as bapted, where they have 
various colors imparted by nature. Birds and animals do not 
dip themselves in dye to receive their spots, plumage and 
variegated colors 4. A bully speaking, Acharn, Act i, sc. 1, 
he says: " Lest I [6ap50-6amm,a] stain you — cause the blood 
to stain you — with a Sardinian hue." Here bapto occurs 
twice, one being a noun form, derived from bapto, in both, 
dipping is out of the question. The blood streams from the 
stroke of a fist, as we say, give you a bloody nose or face. 
See this quoted by quite all leading lexicons on bapto. 



Mode of Baptism. 303 

5. "First, they wash [baptos'] the wool in warm water." The 
wool is washed with the water as a means, not washe<l while 
in or under the water. Mere dipping wool is not washing it, 
hence it is no allusion to an j mode. 6. The other instance, 
seventh case of bapto in same form, is compounded with en.,, 
and strengthens the verb so much that it is no test of the 
meaning of bapto, just as in, with tingo in Latin, entirely 
changes the meaning from moisten to dip. In Aristophanes, 
then, five times bapto occurs, and once bamma, same thing, 
making six occurrences. ]N"ot once is it dip, or plunge, or 
immerse. It is used where the element is applied by hand, 
or an instrument containing the element, to the person. So 
^tion, Plutarch, Arrian, later, use bapto for dyeing the beard, 
dyeing the hair, coloring the parts about the eyes, the face 
with paints, as do other Greek writers. It was a very com- 
mon habit to do this and it was described by bapto, baptos. 

Plutarch, vi, 680: "Then perceiving that his beard was 
colored [^ba.ptomenori] and his head." 

Arrian : " Tzie Indians [baptontail dyed their beards." They 
applied the matter or element to their beard. 

Hippocrates, B. C. 430, quoted by Dr. Carson, speaking of 
a dyeing substance says: "When it drops [mtoajce] upon the 
garments they are stained," bapted, baptetai. 

Dropping a colored liquid "upon the garments" is hardly a 
clear case of dipping or immersing. 

We have gone over the period from Homer to Plato, from 
1000 B. C, to 429 B. C. 

During these periods of illustrious writers, 

1. Not once does it mean immerse. 

2. x*[ot once a total dip of the whole object, bapted. 

3. Only three times does it mean to dip, even in the partial 
manner seen. 

4. In not one of the instances does it describe the act 
performed by baptists when they baptize. 

5. It frequently applies to the very mode, and to its full extent, 
used by Pedobaptists. It is not mode we demand as such at all. 



304 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The application of the element, water, to the subject in any 
way, meets all we demand. 

6. Its prevailing use as yet was in cases of affusion and 
effusion, or aspersion. 

FROM B. C. 429 TO A. D. 1 — PLATO, ARISTOTLE, ETC. 

Plato, born B. C. 429, use^? it for dip, and constantly for 
dye, and need not be quoted dye where it was by dipping. 

Aristotle, B. C. 384, speaks of dyeing, coloring and dipping 
once, where it is partial, dyeing where it is by dipping, . says 
also, speaking of a dyeing substance — {thibomenos de baptei kca 
anthidzei taen cheira) " being pressed, it moistens (badtei) and 
dyes (anthidzei) the hand." 

Here the mode cannot be mistaken. The fluid came upon, 
into contact with, the object moistened, and having coloring 
elements in it, {anthidzei) stains or dyes the hand. 

Here the greatest of all Greek scholars in all ages, uses 
ba2:>to for moisten, where it comes upon, or into contact with, 
the object moistened, by being pressed out of a substance, 
hence perfect effusion is the mode, the effect is to color, and 
not even bapto, but anthidzo describes that act. 

Let us examine this word that means to dye, color, anthidzo. 
Stephanus. Anthidzo, to sprinkle with flowers, conspergo, exan- 
thidzo, tingo, stain. Suidas, and other native Greeks, exchange 
it with bapto. Liddell and Scott's Greek lexicon anthidzo, to 
strew with flowers, to deck as with flowers, to dye, stain with 
colors, to bloom, to be dyed or painted. [Metaphorically.] 
A man whose hair is sprinkled with white. (Sophocles) 

This shows how a word may come to mean to color, dye, 
stain, without dipping. 

We have gone over ground enough to pause. Centnries 
more would tally with the above exhibit. Marcus Antonius 
speaks of the soul \baptetai'] tinged by the thoughts, takes their 
hue. "Tinge it, then, hapte, by accustoming yourself to such 
thoughts." 

Diodorus Siculus, B. C. 69-30: "Coats [baptais] Qo\ovedi 
and flowered with various colors." "i^ative warmth has 



Mode of Baptism. 305 

[•ehapseTi] tinged the above varieties of the growth of things 
(birds, precious stones, etc.) before mentioned." Tom. iii, 
315; xi, 149. Later — 4. e. , years after Chri st, bapto came to apply 
to total dippings, which were sudden. In the dyeing among 
the ancients, we know too little to be able to say how long 
the garment remained in contact with the element, or how 
much of the garment at a time was dipped into the dye. "We 
have no real proof that the whole object in any case at any 
and the sam6 time was put into the dye. Granting it was, 
two facts are clear: 

1. Dye is derivative, not primary. The history shows 

that. 

2. Sprinkle, pour, dropping upon, were the earliest modes 
implied in bapto. 

Take now the fact that in the Old and New Testaments 
bapto occurs a number of times, the following holds true: 

1. It never applies there to an immersion. 

2. It never involves envelopment in a single case. In John 
xii, 26, Mark xiv, 20, Luke xvi, 24, embapto, Matt, xxvi, 23, 
Lev. x, 65 etc.,* (the Old Testament cases will come in under 
Hebrew tabal, see Index), Rev.xix, 14. It never involves, in 
all the Bible, the putting of the whole object under the ele- 
ment. 

3. In the only cases where it applies to the element of water 
unmixed with coloring elements, it has the force of sprinkle. 
Daniel iv, 30; v. 21, ebaphce his (Nebuchadnezzar's) body was 
wet, sprinkled [^bapto] with the dew of heaven." Theodotian 
made this version near the apostolic time. In Rev. xix, 13, it 
is used for sprinkle, and so rendered by the Ethiopic, Syriac, 
and seven of the most ancient and best versions. It is trans- 
lated sprinkle by the three greatest of the Greek Fathers of 
the second and third centuries, Irenaeus, Origen, and Hippoly- 
tus, all native Greeks. 

Thus we see that sprinkle is the the primary meaning and 
inheres in bapto to the third century after Christ, that is 
enough, covers the case. 

"See Exodus xii, 22 ; Lev. xiv, 16 ; iv, 17 ; ix, 9 ; xiv, 6-51, etc. 
20 



3o6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

We have seen that dye, staiu, color, paint, constantly come 
from words primarily meaning to sprinkle, others, to moisten, 
when it is by affusion. The facts become overwhelming. 

We see in the above exhibit that the quantity of the bapting 
element is wholly left out. In one case the blood of a frog 
applies to a lake — ebapteto d'hai-mati limnce. A few drops bapted 
"the garments." The hand was bapted by the coloring mois- 
ture touching it. The body was "bapted by the dew \c(po] 
from heaven.''" The blood of a slain bird bapted the living 
bird, hyssop, scarlet, wool and all. The vesture or outer gar- 
ment is bapted with blood, compared to the grape juice in 
treading the wine press. Rev. xix, 1, with Is. Ixiii, 1-3. 

Again, no definite and single mode inheres in it. It comes 
to be used where by any possible process the wetting, the col- 
oring, the staining matter comes "upon the object, even where 
birds grow and stones are formed, colored by nature. We 
will see many other words in future of like use. 

After these facts, which being presented, no One dare ques- 
tion them, to talk as Baptists do, that bapto always implies 
dip, is simply to shut one's eyes and seek to fan the sun into a 
sea of ice with a pea-cock's tail. After all this, it is a matter 
of indifference what Anthon, so paraded by our opponents, 
says in his letter, especially when he also thus writes and 
publishes, well supported in it too: "Baptse. The priests 
of Cotytta. The name is derived from bapto, to tinge or dye, 
from their painting their cheeks and staining the parts around 
the eves like women." Class. Die, bv Charles Anthon. 
Does dye, stain, come from dipping? 

All facts, all philology, all history demonstrate 

1. That sprinkle, moisten, was the primary meaning of 

bapto. 

2. That stain, color, smear, are its next meanings, as 
sprinkling with coloring matter necessarily so resulted. 

3. Sprinkling water washed, but so slight a sprinkle carried 
not force enough for it to be used often for that, and haptidzo 
in religious use took that meaning from pouring water. 
Bapto but rarely applies to washing. 



Mode of Baptism. 307 

4, That dip is derived from color, stain, a derivative from a 
derivative, which is very common in all languages. 

5. That in Christ's day, and later, Origen, Irenseus, born 
four years before John died, Hippolytus, and all the learned 
translators translate hapto, sprinkle — this sustained by the 
hundreds of thousands of the church, the unanimous verdict. 
Immersionists all insist that hapto and baptidzo are the same 
in meaning, only differ in one point, bapto means stain or dye 
they say. We have shown how it so means — its philology. 
Hence our position stands as firm as the everlasting hills. — 
[ Ti7ne out 







oS The Great Carrolltox Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FOURTEENTH SPEECH. 

Argument from the Lexicons. 

Advancing to my main argument, I will submit a few additional 
lexical authorities . 

S-i. Clias. Anthon ^ late President of Columbia College, X. Y., than 
whom, as a Greek scholar, no man on the American continent stood 
higher. 

"Baptidzo. " The primary meaning of the word is to dip or imraerse^ and its 
secondary meanings^ if it ever had a.iy^ all refer in some way or other to the same 
leadrng idea. SPiH^STXnnSTG, etc., are entirely out of the question.^' 

35. Trommins, (1718) Con. of Sept. '' Baptidzo^ to baptize^ to immerse, 
to dip.^'' 

ot). Vossius, (i6^). ^^ Baptidzo. To baptize signifies te plunge. It certainly, 
therat'ore^ signifies nruore than '' epi polazein^^'' "which is to swim tightly on the top, 
and le^s than '■^ dunein,^'' which is to sink to the iottom, so as to be destroy d.^' 

You will notice that this author pointedly denies the truth 

of my opponent's assertion, that baptized, in the sense of to 

immerse, is used to signify to droicn, to destroy life, by all 

classic Greek writers. Schleusner, though suppressed, declares 

that it is never used in the sense of to drown, to destroy life, 

in the Xew Testament, thouo'li it is sometimes so used bv the 

Greeks. 

87. Pickering. '■^ BajMdzo^ to dip, imnaerse, submerge, pltmge, sink, 
overwhelm ; [these are his primary definitions ; now follow his secondary, 
or figurative,] to steep; to soak ; to wet; mid., to wash one's self, or 
bathe ; oi bebaptis-menoi, soaked in ^^ine, or drunken. Pud. Sympl. 176, B; 
overwhelmed with debts , Piat ; with questions, P-at., Euthyd. ; to overwhelm 
one with anything ; to be prodigal toward one ; to sink a ship or galley. — ' Greek 
Lexicon." 

38. Passow. ^' Baptidzo, eintauchen, untertauchen, to dip in. to dip 
under.'''' [When Elder Ditzler read this author, he passed over these, and 
only read figurative meanings, and I now give these as Passow's j:)rf//?r//-?/ 
ones]. 

39. Kouma. ^'^ Baptidzn to immerse, to dip repeatedly into a hquid. 

40. Gaza. '' Baptidzo, to dip repeatedly; hence, (i.e., by metonjTny), 
used for to drench, to wash, to bathe.^'' 



Mode of Baptism. 



309 



You have noticed that Donegan and these two last give "to 
dip repeatedly" as one of the meanings of baptidzo. It was 
thought for a while that zo indicated a repetition of the action, 
but it is now given up. Liddell & Scott rejected it from their 
Lexicon, and Robinson says '^ frequentative in form but not in 
fact," 

I could give many others, but I have here presented more 
than was ever brought forward in a public discussion upon 
this continent, and all the principal ones I have with me. The 
mind that these forty of the most authoritative lexicons extant 
will not convince,wouid be as proof against four hundred. You 
will notice I have given their definitions in their own words, 
if in Latin, quoted the text, that you may decide if I translate 
properly, I have invariably given the primary and literal 
meanings, but my opponent gives, we know^ not what meaning 
of his authors, save we know he never gives the literal ones, 
and he gives their meanings in his own words, seldom giving 
the text. You will decide which of us treats this question 
fairly. 

Another fact, every lexicographer of these forty, are Pedo- 
baptist wutnesses, not one a Baptist. I therefore submit my 
argument from the testimony of lexicographers to the pubhc 
with all confidence. Let an unprejudiced world decide if my 
opponent has produced the thousandth part of the evidence 
for the definition ^0 sprinkle, or to ])our as the proper because 
primary meaning of haptidzo. I do, before God and this peo- 
ple, deny most conscientiously that he has produced any. He 
has not brought forward a standard lexicon of the Greek 
language, that gives to sprinkle or to pour as the primary, the 
literal or proper signification of haptidzo ! If I am mistaken, 
let him correct me here and now — let him produce it, or give 
satisfactory evidence that it exists when he rises again. With 
the philological speculations of his crazy Furst I have nothing 
to do, but even Furst, if his full testimony could only be 
taken, will testify to the fact that to dip, to immerse, was the 
current use of haptidzo in the days of Christ and his apos- 
tles, even though he may claim that it meant to sprinkle a 
thousand vears before, and this is all I want This admission 



3IO The Great Carrollton Debate. 

is to be found somewhere in the writings of Olinthus Gre- 
gory. " Touching the action of baptism, it is one question 
where the proof is all on the side of the Baptists." Must not 
every one who is not so unintentionally prejudiced that he 
cannot reason and feel the force of testimony, see that, thus 
far, the evidence is all on our side, that baptidzo, in its current 
literal signification in the days of Christ was to dip, to im- 
merse ? 

Argument from the Invariable Practice of the Eastern or Greek Church. 

This church grew out of the apostacy of the third and fourth 
centuries. Though the form of church polity was changed from 
a Democracy to an Episcopacy, the action of baptism w^as never 
changed by this so called church. From the fourth century 
until to-day by Canonical authority with which its office of 
Holy Baptism corresponds, immersion has been the undevia- 
ting practice, though early in its history it so corrupted the 
law as to institute three immersions for the one Christ appointed, 
and Tertullian on its first introduction declared that ''it was 
more than the Scriptures required.'^ 

I give here the Ritual of the Greek church. 

Extract from Gear's "EUCHOLOGIAN, or Ritual of the Greeks." 

"Office of the Holy Immersion (Baptism)." 

(aft«r the preliminary ceremonies) 

"And when the whole body is anointed, the priest immerses (baptizes) 
him [the child], holding him erect, and looking toward the east, saying : 

The servant of God [name] is immersed (baptized), in the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit; now and ever, and to ages 
of ages. Amen. 

At each invocation, bringing him down, and bringing him up. And 
after the immersing (baptizing), the priest washes his hands, singing 
with the people: 'Happy they, whose sins are forgiven,' " etc. 

As Elder Ditzler has flatly denied that the Greek church in 
all its parts does invariably immerse and has invariably done 
so since the fourth century, now 1476 years, I will now quote 
a few of the many authors on this statement that concerns a 
plain matter of fact, that you may see who tries to mislead you 
touching a matter so patent to all. 

Dr. Whitby. — " The observation of the Greek church is this, that He 
ascended out of the water ^ must first descend down into it." 



Mode of Baptism. 311 

Dr. Wall. — " The Greek church in all the branches of it does still use 
immersion." *'A11 the Christians in Asia, all in Africa., and about one- 
third part of Europe, are of the last sort, in which third part of Europe are 
comprehended the Christians of Graecia, Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, Basoia, 
Wallachia, Moldavia, Russia, Nigra, and so on ; and even the Muscovites, 
who, if coldness of the country will excuse, might plead for a dispensation 
with the most reason of any." — Hi^. of Inf. Bap,^ part iL, c. ix. 

Deylingius — "The Greeks retain the rite of immersion to this day: its 
Jeremiah, the Patriarch of Constantinople, declares." — De PwAcat. Pasto- 
rialj parsiiL c. iii., ^26. 

ScHUBEET. — "It is the opinion of the Greeks that the true baptism of 
Christ is administered, not by the application of water in any way, but by 
immersion, or by hiding the person to be baptized under water." — Instit. 
Theol. Polem. pars ii. c. iii., 'i 12. 

Russian Catechism. — " This they [the Greek ehm^ch in Russia] hold to 
be a point necessary ^ that no part of the child be undipped in the water." - 
— In Booth, on Bap., vol. iL p. 414. 

Alexander de Stouedza, Russian State-Councillor, in a work pub- 
lished at Stutgart in 1816, says: "The church of the West* has, then, 
departed from the example of Jesus Christ ; she has obliterated the whole 
Sublimity of the exterior sign : — in short, she commits an abuse of worci;^ 
and of "ideas in practising baptism by aspersion,^ this very term being in itself 
.a derisive contradiction. The verb baptidzo, immei-go,^ has in fact but one 
sole acce]3tation. It signifies, literally and always ^o^^ww^e. Baptism and 
immersion are, therefore, identical; and to say, baptism by asper.-iion^ is as; 
if one should say, i'mme7^sion by aspersion, or any other absurdity of the same 
nature." — In Dr. Conant, on Bap., pp. 150, 151. 

The Bishop of the Cyclades, in 1837 pubUshed at Athens a book 
•entitled, Tlie Orthodox Doctrine. Speaking ofsprinkhng, he says: "Where 
has the Pope taken the practice from? Where has the Western church 
seen it adopted, that she declares it to be right? Has she learned it from 
the baptism of the Lord ? Let Jordan bear witness, and first proclaim the 
immersions and the emersions. From the words of our Lord? Hear 
them aright. Disciple the nations ; then baptize them. He says not, the u 
anoint them, or sprinkle them ; but he plainly commissions His apostles 
to baptize. The word baptidzo explained, means a veritable dipping^ and in 
fact a perfect dipping. An object is baptized when it is completely concealed. 
This is the the proper explanation of the word baptidzo. Did the Poj^e. then, 
learn it from the apostles, or from the word and the expression, or from 
the church in the splendor of her antiquity ? Nowhere did such a practice 
prevail; nowhere can a Scriptural passage be found to afford shelter to the 
opinions of the Western church." — In Bap., Mag., 1849. 

Prof. Stuart. — " The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental 
church has always continued to preserve, even down to the 

IPRESENT TIME." 

*■ Roman Catholic. 



312 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

l^ow this is my argument from, this authonty. The schoh^rs 
of this churcli, and it has had many distinguished ones in eveiy 
century, such as Cyril, Beza, Chrysostom, Athanasius^ Gregoi-y^ 
John of Damascus^ Theophylact^ Zonoras of the twelfth cen- 
tur}^, certainly understood their own mother tongue far better 
than any men who live in this age, and they could not have 
been in ignorance of the meaning of the simple verb haptidzo^ 
that they used daily, not only concerning the common alfairs 
of life, but in their sermons, religious instructions and church 
ritual. All the scholars and commentators and historians of 
this church from the fourth century to this day with one voice 
testify that to immerse or to dip is the primary and physical 
and 50^6 sense of baptidzo. With this testimony we have seen 
the invariable practice of this church accords. Can a more 
conclusive argument possibly be framed? We submit it to 
the verdict of the Christian world. 

Replication,. 

I must now defend the lexicons from my appo-nenf's attack^ 
and reply to some of his statements in his last speech. 

1. He must remember that I alone have the right to lead 
the discussion in this proposition, and it is his duty to follow 
me, and reply to my arguments as I present them, and not to. 
skvrocket all over creation the verv first day. It was my 
plan to examine the Word of God on this subject tirst, and 
lexicons in their proper place. I have produced forty of the 
most reliable extant, and certainly all the acknowledged- 
standard lexicons^ and now he says I have put them out of all 
order, and I understand him to impeach the ''whole array. '^ 
But of the thirty -two, I read first, he mentions but seven in 
any way, and now let us see what he says. 

He charges that I so read Stephanus and Scapula, as ta 
make them say that baptidzo is to immerse things in water for 
the sake of dyeing. Possibly I did, fori was reading with great 
rapidit}^ to get all my proof in. I will read more carefully, a& 
I would have it go to record : 

Stephanus. — "Baptidzo. Mergo, seu immergo, ut quae tingendi ant 
ablueadi gratia aquse iixiiaergimiis.." 



Mode of Baptism. 313 

[To immerse, or dip iii, as we immerse anything for tiie sake of dyeing 
or wasliing in water]. 

Mergo — i. e., submerge, obruo aqua, [To immerse, i. e., to submerge, 
to overwhelm in water. 

Mark my opponent does not challenge the definitions of this 
great lexicographer, only objects to niy reading so as to make 
baptidzo apply to dyeing. I do not so understand the author, 
but to say this, that it is just such an act as when we dip any- 
thing for the sake of dyeing it — it is usually taken out I 
believe — or into water to wash it — and the article in this case 
is taken out. !N"ow, this is what Elder Ditzler emphatically 
denies, and has stoutly denied it in defiance of all authorities 
throughout this discussion, Stephanus, whatever others may 
think, says its action is like that of bapto — i. e., like the act 
when we dip anything to dye. This witness is unharmed. 

2. He says I made Scapula say dip in water for the sake of 
dyeing, aind that I know baptidzo is not used for dyeing. Of 
course I do, and of course I know nothing is dyed by dipping 
it in water. 

I will read again to let all see what I do understand Scapula 
to say. 

Scapula. — "Baptidzo, seu immergo. Item tingo ; ut quodtingendi, aut 
abluendi gratia aqua immergimus. [To merse or immerse. Also to dip; 
as we immerse anythingforthesakeof dyeing or washing it in water,] item 
mergo, submergo, obruo aqua. [Also to immerse, to submerge, to over- 
whelm in water.] Baptismos et Baptisma. Mersio, Lotio, Ablutio, ipse 
immergendi, item lavendi seu abluendi actus. [ Immersion, washing, 
w^ashing clean; the act itself of immersing; also of washing, or washing 
clean.]" 

This great authority certainly talks sense, which I most 
heartily indorse and Elder Ditzler cannot gainsay, and this 
testimony with that of Stephanus decides this question in my 
favor, beyond controversy. 

But Suidas, of the tenth century— I have never seen his 
lexicon, nor has Elder Ditzler — it is very rare — but I suppose 
Ingham, from whom I quoted, had seen it. Dr. Conant under 
Example 43, quotes this example of its use from Suidas' lexi- 
con, which certainly indicates what he understood it to mean, 
and that is immersion, " Desiring to swim through, they were 



314 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

baptized by their full armor" — i e. submerged. This example 
sustains Ingham. 

Elder Ditzler's fling at immersionists is unbecoming in a 
gentleman, much more in a Christian. It is the utterance of 
a chafed spirit, overwhelmed with difliculties he cannot over- 
come, and Baptists can well afford to overlook it. 

But Leigh ; I make him say just the reverse of what he does 
say! Now this is a question of simple fact, and I assert most 
emphatically, that I have quoted Leigh correctly. I first 
copied from Ingham, and afterwards justified it by the text of 
Leigh, which I hold in my hand. I will read it. 

'' Baptidzo,'' omitting its derivation, "the native and proper 
signification of it is to dip, to dip into water, or to plunge under 
water." I appeal from Elder Ditzler's assertion to the decis- 
ion of the scholars present, and scholars everywhere. It is 
your book, and if you will permit, I will copy the text, as it is 
in Latin for the reporter. 

Will all observe that Leigh, speaking of the use of baptidzo 
in the New Testament, says of baptismas : 

"If we are willing to observe the import of tlie word, the term of bap- 
tism signifies immersion into water, or the act itself of immersing and 
washing off. Therefore, from the very name and etymology of the word, 
it appears what would in the beginning be the custom of administering 
baptism, whilst we now have for baptism rather rhantism, that is 
sprinkling." 

Can anyone now doubt the correctness of the definition of 
baptidzo^ in its classical sense, which I gave? baptis7na being 
one of its noun forms? 

He charges me with omitting " the whole New Te^ament 
definition of the phrase." I gave the wdiole primary defini- 
tions, which my opponent fails to do. I will show in ray next 
speech that baptidzo has no different signification in the New 
Testament from its native, primary, classical sense, nor does 
Stephanus deny it. Therefore, I have in no sense misrepre- 
sented it. 

He charges me with misquoting Schleusner, and making 
him say the reverse of wbat he does say, and of utterly per- 
verting Stokius. I am glad that he lias preferred this charge 



Mode of Baptism. 315 

against me, for I am still alive and here to defend myself. 
He makes the same charge in most offensive language against 
A. Campbell, who is dead and unable to defend himself I 
will very soon enter upon my defense, and if my opponent is 
possessed of sensibilities not wholly unblunted, he will lay a 
troubled head on his pillow to-night, and regret that he ever 
made this charge against me. 

jN'ow for Rost & Palm. He admits their lexicon is a ''great 
work." How have I perverted them? I gave the text not 
only of the primary, but 5ec07ic?ar^ meanings of baptidzo, also. 
Is this evidence of unfairness on my part? These lexicog- 
raphers GIVE TO DIP IN, OR TO DIP UNDER, OFTEN AND REPEAT- 
EDLY, AS THE PRIMARY MEANING OF BAPTIDZO ! They givC, 

it is true, to dip often, and as some do, thinking that zo, indi- 
cates Si frequentative form, but this theory is given up. Liddell 
and Scott in their later editions have left it out, and Robinson 
says, "in form but not in fact frequentative" — to dip in or 
under then remains as the only native, primary, real significa- 
tion of baptidzo. ^^Dah" therefore, consequently, indicates the 
figurative, as opposed to the literal use, by metonymy the effect 
put for the act or cause " to wet," " to moisten," " to over-pour," 
but to wet or to sprinkle are not therefore real definitions of 
the verb. Webster gives, "to choose by chance," and "to 
mortgage," under the verb to dip. But who will presume to 
say that they are the real, literal significations of the verb 
to dip? These are all the specific charges Elder Ditzler 
brings against the thirty-two lexicons I produced in my last 
speech, and what does he say. " Hence, with these exposures/ 
exposures! Mr. President, exposures! These exposures!! 
Has he made the shadow of one ? He dare not say it here. 
But he seeks to make the impression upon his friends here 
and the public, by the word, that he has, without making the 
charge direct. But you know, and this audience knows, that 
he has made no other exposure here, save that his cause rests 
upon the remote and figurative use of baptidzo, as given by 
some lexicons, while you know that in enacting or construing 
the terms of a law, all figurative meanings should be dis- 
carded. 



3i6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

He coiicliicles his assault bv savins:, "I challeuo-e every one 
of Dr. Graves' lexicons." AYell, I say, until he can impeach 
the lexicons produced, until he can demonstrate that the 
primary meanings that one and all give are all false, such 
a stupendous recklessness on the part of the Elder will, as it 
should effectually destroy all the confidence of mankind in him 
as a scholar and controversialist. What weight will his 
assertions have with thinking men after thej^ read this? 

Dr. George Campbell, that eminent scholar of England, was 

a Presbyterian, but he was an honest man. In lecturing his 

students, he warned them against the rash and reckless com^se 

of a man like my opponent, in these words: 

" I have heard a disputant in defiance of etymology and use, maintain 
that the word haptidzo means more properly to sprinkle than to plunge, 
and in defiance of all antiquity [and I can now add of all Greek authors 
and lexicographers], that the former was the earhest. and most general 
practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails with 
persons of knowledge to betray the cause he would defend, and though 
with respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as well as 
arguments, and sometimes better ; yet a candid mind will always disdain 
to take the help of falsehood, even in the support of truth." — Lect. on Pal. 
El. p. 304. 

History of Llddell & Scott's Lexicon. 

"With respect to Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon, my oppo- 
nent has certainly shown that he does not understand the 
history of that Lexicon, and I will endeavor to make that 
matter plain to him, and all men should know it. It was in 
1848 or 1849 that Liddell and Scott, two of the most distin- 
guished classical scholars of England, Episcopalians both, 
issued this work, a great work, and I will say the most 
authoritative of all Greek lexicons ever published in the English 
language. These men had the lexicons of all the most distin- 
guished scholars who had ever written before them, and they 
took Eld. Ditzler's greatest lexicographer, Passow, as their 
foundation. About the fifth definition of baptidzo they had 
" to pour upon" and referred to the Greek author who so used 
it. I will here remark, the superiority of Liddell & Scott's 
lexicon consists in this : when they give a definition they give 
the name of a writer as authority for using a word in a given 



Mode of Baptism. 317 

sense, they at the same time append a quotation from his works 
containing the word as thus used. Prof. Drisler, of ColLunbiri 
College, ITew York, brought out an American edition of this 
great lexicon. In the meantime, scholars in England and on 
the Continent examined this definition of b22:>tidzo and the 
authority quoted for it, and remonstrated with Liddel & Scott 
for inserting it, and called their attention to the fact that the 
authority/ cited did not at all sustain such a definition. Convinced 
of the fact, they struck it out of their second edition as a defi- 
nition unsupported by any Greek authority. Prof. Drisler, in 
the spirit of a true scholar, published a card informing the 
people that his second edition would be conformed to the sec- 
ond English edition, and " to pour upon" was struck out of 
his next edition. My opponent says Prof. Drisler was influ- 
enced by the Baptists and the Bible Union revisionists ! How 
absurd the supposition ! He disclaims any denominational 
influence in the naatter. Prof. Duncan wrote to know why the 
American did not conform to the English edition. He was in- 
formed that it would be made to do so. Thus, the question we 
are discussing has been forever settled by Pedobaptist sprink- 
lers themselves ! The scholars of England, and Germany, and 
America have thus decided that "to sprinkle" or "to pour 
upon" is, in no sense, a definition of haptidzo. Mere contro- 
versialists may still contend, but all scholars have given it up. 
If '• to pour upon " is one of the meanings of baptidzo. what 
motive could possibly have influenced the parties concerned to 
compromise their reputation as scholars by omitting to give 
this definition of it in their lexicon ? Whv, the facts show 
that, while they were so eager to foist this meaning upon the 
word, UlI happily for them and the cause in which they were 
so zealous, there was not 1^ be found within the whole range 
of Greek literature a single instance in which the word w^ould 
bear this construction. The facts were a2:ainst them, and thev 
had to give it up. No scholar in England could find the cov- 
eted passage, and American scholars were equally unsuccess- 
ful in their search and at last had to abandon it in despair, and 
Prof. Drisler had to drop this pseudo interpretation from his 
definition of the word ; and twenty years have passed, and the 
lexicon has passed through six editions, and all the Pedobap- 



3i8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tist scholars of the civilized world have not been able to find 
any sufficient authority in the whole domain of Greek litera- 
ture to justify them to give "to pour upon," much less " to 
sprinkle upon," as a proper meaning of haptidzo. They have 
given it up ; and yet, in the face of all the facts, and in the 
face of all the scholars of both hemispheres, Eld. Ditzler 
stands up and has the modesty (?) to say that baptidzo, means '- to 
sprinkle," and never " to immerse ! " that its primary and 
native signification is '' to sprinkle ! " Will you take his bald 
word in preference to the established facts and the united tes- 
timony of all scholars of two hemispheres, and Pedobaptist 
scholars at that ? 

I will examine his construction of the 156 Example when he 
concludes his remarks, when I will sum up the evidence of 
those examples and show their bearing on his assertion, that 
baptidzo invariably in classic Greek, when referring to persons, 
means to drown. 

Mr. President, he confesses that I am getting in earnest. 
I have indeed been in earnest from the first day of this 
discussion, for we are dealing with earnest matters. We are 
encouraging men, either to obey or disobey Christ. We are 
infiuencing their happiness here and hereafter. I am glad 
that he confesses that he is feeling my earnestness. He says, 
"it is time to do, or try to do, something." 'Ro one knows 
better .than he that I have done something that has gone to 
record against him forever. I have proved, to the conviction 
of every unbiased mind inthis audience, that his oft and boldly 
repeated, assertion that, "no instance can be found in Greek liter- 
ature in which haptidzo was employed to express immersion of a 
living being without destroying its life," res^- upon nothing 
but his unsupported authority. I have gi^ " '^-'ym numerous 
examples that disprove his assertion. <^'^ 

Were the cavalrymen of Xenoetas, who were hnptized in those 
pits of mud and water and thereby only disabled for the fight, 
destroyed? Were the men who were subi/ierged with the ships 
on the sea of Galilee, and were dispatched by the missiles of 
the enemy as they arose to the surface, destroyed by the sub- 
merging act expressed by baptidzo? Was Aristobulus destroyed 



Mode of Baptism. 319 

the first time the ruffians dipped him in the swimming bath? 
If so, why did they continue to dip him ? Was King Philip 
or the swimming master destroyed by the first dip they mutually 
gave each other, else how was it that they could play at the 
dipping game for an hour longer? Was the man of bad dreams 
destroyed by his plunge into the sea, which act is expressed by 
baptidzo? If so, how could he sit a whole day upon the shore 
after that immersion? Was Agamemnon destroyed by his 
immersion in lake Cqpais, for it is haptidzo used here? I have 
twice asked him if the king did not go to the Trojan war, but 
he will not answer. And while I have been doing this, I have 
shown that every example found in classic authors means 
primarily and literally " to dip," " to immerse," "to over- 
whelm," and I have done another thing, I have challenged 
Elder Ditzler now for four days to find a Greek author, or 
Greek lexicon, that gives "to sprinkle," or "to pour" as the 
primary and literal signification of haptidzo, and he has not done 
it, and his silence in his last speech is a complete surrender 
of both his boastful assertion and of his ability to sustain his 
" sprinkle ;" and now his last speech, to every reflecting mind, 
is a conclusive confession of failure all along his line, as I will 
presently show, for these several matters I wish to notice here 
for the last time. 

1. I wish to introduce an important witness to testify to the 
correctness of my canon. Dr. Geo. Campbell, President of 
Marischal College, England, a Presbyterian : 

" The word baptism, both in sacred authors and in classical, signifies to 
dip, to plunge, to immerse. Had haptidzo been employed in the saroe 
sense of raino, to sprinkle (which as far as I know it never is, in any 
use, sacred or classical ), the expression would doubtless have been, I in- 
deed BAPTIZE WATER UPON YOU." 

2. He says I have " given up the primary meaning." This 
information will astonish every one ! I am, as you well know, 
Mr. President, rigidly adhering to the primary meaning, and 
by it grinding into the dust his position and assertions. But 
it is known to every scholar here that Eld. Ditzler never uses 
it. If he has read out here the primary meaning from one of 
the lexicons he has brought forward to sustain him, my ear 



320 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

has not detected it. In every case he has given the secondary 
or fi2:nrative use of the word. Let this be remembered. 

3. I want to call your attention to the fact that he frankly 
admitted this morning, that the Greek church has always im- 
mersed, as I have ah-eady proved to you. Thisis an important 
and weighty fact. The explanation is, the Greek is the 
language of the Greek church, and no amount of sophistry 
could induce them to sprinkle or pour upon, for Christiari 
baptism. Thej^ have ever protested against the Latins as only 
sprinkled, and not baptized Christians. 

4. As to Gaza, and Kouma, and some half a dozen other 
lexicographers and expositors of Greek classic usage, I have 
this to say, these men are not recognized as high standard 
authorities, but all they do say as to the primary meaning of 
bapticlzo, is on the side of the Baptists, in favor of immersion 
as the real meaning. 

5. Touching the argument from the ancient versions of the 
sacred Scriptures, as he is determined to anticipate me, I will 
say this, and it will serve to occupy his time until I get to 
versions, neither Origen, nor any translator of the Scriptures 
into any tongue, from the sixth century before Christ to the 
eighteenth after Christ ever, in one single case, translated 
raino. rantizo, brecho, or any Greek verb that means "to sprin- 
kle" or "to pour upon" by haptidzo or its cognates, nor bap- 
tidzQ by a verb whose primary signification is "to sprinkle" or 
"to pour upon." Let him find one example or be silent on 
versions, at least, until I reach them. 

6. He has satisfied me, and I think he must have satisfied 
you, that he has given up the classic Greek, and that is a point 
gained to-da}'. I have all the classic Greek writers with me, 
and that is another point gained, and I have already shown 
that I have forty standard Greek lexicons with me, the 
definitions of not one of which did he challenge in his last 
speech. Forty standard lexicons give "to immerse," "to 
dip. "etc., as t\iQ primary, Xywq and real meaning of bajjtidzo, 
and he has not, and he will not, deny it. But he can, find "to 
wet," " to moisten," given by several as the secondary meaning of 
baptidzo. Very well, what of it ? "Webster gives, as I have shown 



Mode of Baptism. 32 t 

you, " to wet," " to moisten," and even " to mortgage," as one 
of the secondary meanings of " to dip," but is there a child 
of fourteen who will claim that moistening a thing by sprink- 
ling a few drops of water ujpon it is dipping the thing into 
water — that sprinkling, or mortgaging property is a definition 
of " to dip ? " It is by this kind of strategy and legerdemain 
that my opponent gets "to moisten," "to wet," and then "to 
sprinkle," and "to pour," out of baptidzo. The Greek verb 
baptidzo no more properly means "to sprinkle" or "to pour" 
than the English verb to dip means "to sprinkle," as every 
Greek scholar in this house, and on this continent, knows. 

7. But he says that he has immersed, and will immerse if 
necessary. I want to ask him a few questions. 1. Would be 
call it Christian baptism? 2. If so, by what authority in 
God's word would he immerse a person in the name of the 
Trinity, which, to say the least, means by its authority? 
8. Is it or not by the only law — i. e., the commission? Will 
he tell me the verse in the Bible that he will say authorizes 
him to immerse, or which he will admit contains a clear exam- 
ple of immersion ? 4. When he immerses, does he or does 
he not put the subject "clean under the water?" and if the com- 
mission is his authority, is not baptidzo the verb that indicates 
the act? 5. Then will he tell us if those persons he immersed 
survived the operation ? 6. If so, what becomes of his asser- 
tion, that baptidzo never puts one clean under the water, with- 
out resulting in death ? ! 

8. But he says Mintert, and one or two others, perhaps, 
give pluno, "to wash," as a definition of baptidzo. Well, if 
baptidzo indeed means pluno, "to wash," it would not in the 
least help his practice of sprinkling, not in the least 

You can see why they give phino, because it is necessary to 
dip into water when you wash. You ladies know that if your 
washerwoman were to sprinkle a few drops upon, or slightly 
moisten with a few fingers your clothes, and return them as 
washed, you would scarcely pay them. 

Finally, I cannot please him. At one time he is against 

ancient authorities and pleads for modern scholarship, and 

when I bring up the modern he goes back and extols the old,. 
21 



322 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I cannot suit "him. Almost all his morning's speech was on 
baptidzo, giving onl}^ the secondary and figurative meanings in his 
lexicons, l^ow, when I am pressing him to a fair and square 
issue on baptidzo, giving him and you the only proper signifi- 
cation of the term, because primary and literal, from forty 
standard lexicons, does he meet me? !N'o; but it is now all 
hapto, a word never used in tlie Bible where there is reference 
to Christian baptism! His entire last speech was all hapto. 
Is this discussing the question, or an attempt to becloud and 
mislead you? But he shall not confuse or mislead any one 
unless he is determined, in spite of facts, to be misled. 

I vdll state again, what my opponent will not stand up before 
me and deny, that hapto has nothing under the wide heavens 
to do with the determination of the true meaning of baptidzo, 
save incidentally, as the verb from which it is derived. 
Suppose I should grant for the sake of argument, that hapto 
means '' to dye," and only " to dye," never " to dip," this would 
not affect the definition of baptidzo, the only word that Christ 
or the Holy Spirit used to designate the act of baptism. As 
derivatives sometimes lose the last shade of the signification 
of their primitives or root-origin, as tingo once primarily 
meant to dip, 2, to dye, now it has lost its first, and its second- 
ary has become its primary, we are compelled to go to standard 
Latin authors and learn the signification they attach to it. 
!N"ow, I have shown here, that throughout the ISTew Testament 
only one signification can be given to baptidzo and the sense be 
preserved. I have shown that every Greek author whose works 
have reached us, use it only in the sense of " to dip," " to im- 
merse," as the primary and usual signification, and in my last 
speech I quoted thirty-two standard Greek lexicons, and in 
this I have added nine more — forty in all, every one of 
which gives "to dip," to immerse," as the literal and proper 
signification of baptidzo, therefore this is the proper and cur- 
rent meaning of the verb, though my opponent could prove 
that bapto only means "to sprinkle." 

But what is the fact touching bapto, which his entire last 
speech was an attempt to cover up? Its primary, native and 
literal signification is " to dip," "to dip into," just as certainly 



Mode of Baptism. 323 

as our English verb to dip means to put one substance into another ; 
but secondarily it is used to denote the act of dyeing, because 
the thing dyed is dipped into the coloring matter, and hence, 
its secondary signification '* to dye," as every lexicon explains 
it, therefore, when, and only when, dyeing is alluded to, hapto 
may be properly rendered " to dye." But mark and remem- 
ber, the act of dyeing is never denoted by the verb haptidzo^ 

never, nor is the Christian rite of baptism ever denoted by 
bapto — never; and what, therefore, does his speech for the last 

half hour amount to? If, indeed, bapto means "to dye," that 
fact don't help his cause one whit, for Christ never commanded 
his apostles to go out and dye the nations — color the people — 
and had he used the term hapto^ wild as my opponent is, I 
hardly think he would claim that he was authorized to paint 
the adults and babies he baptizes in fancy colors, not unless he 
learned from the Kew Testament that the apostles painted for 
baptism. But Christ never used the term bapto. He claims 
that one grammarian, Kuhner, gives '^ tinge" — L e. "to color 
slightly," as the meaning of bapto., " and a host of others [other 
what, grammarians ?] give ' moisten'as the primary meaning of 
bapto. He has left lexicographers now for grammarians, whose 
business is not with definitions, but the construction of lan- 
guage. What has he made by the change ? Grant that Kuh- 
ner does give " to color slightly" as one of the meanings of 
bapto, this don't help sprinkling, for the most devoted advocates 
don't color slightly for baptism, But it is not true that a host 
of others, whether he means grammarians or lexicographers, 
give " to moisten" as the primary meaning of bapto. When 
he will present one standard lexicon or grammar that does so 
I will modify my emphatic denial. This is a plain issue — will 
he accept it ? 

So much, as a sufficient reply to all his speech. A poet may^ 
by poetic license, declare that the lake was tinged, dyed, " col- 
ored," by the blood of a single frog. IlTobody is misled by it. 
A part of the lake, some part of the water was colored, and by 
a legitimate figure of speech, metonymy, a part is put for the 
whole, or the language may be simply denominated hyper- 
bolical—an exaggerated description. — [T/me out.'] 



324 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S FOURTEENTH SPEECH. 



Gentlemen Moderators : — Dr. Graves thinks he has one 
case where baptidzo puts a living being under water, who does 
not perish. N'ot yet, nor can he. ^'Bravely plunging (bap- 
tizing) himself into the lake Copais." etc. Men often plunge 
into a lake, river, pond, creek, yet are not wholly submerged. 
Shakspeare says of Caesar swimming in the river: "I plunge 
me in." An orator describing the same says, "he plunged; 
the die is cast and Rome is free no more." Ahorse "plunges" 
on land. It does not imply submersion. Mergo in Latin 
often occurs for plunge where the person swims — does not go 
under. I cited many cases in Louisville Debate, and need not 
repeat them. The same applies to Ex. 64 in Conant, 

He says it would only be baptizing the water, if it was to 
pour or sprinkle. Indeed ! Will he rely on that fee-ble effort 
that we supposed only children in debate could use ? He 
says to sprinkle is " to scatter in drops." If it is pour, it is the 
water you pour. !N"ow we showed in our first address that the 
same words that mean to pour, to sprinkle, meant also in 
many cases, to moisten, to wet, others to sprinkle, then stain, 
color, others to pour, then to anoint, wash, cleanse — the vast 
majority of them coming also to mean dip, whelm, immerse, 
submerse. Over fifty such words we collected, and adduced 
a great number of them. The same words mean to sprinkle, 
pour, and to immerse. When they meao to immerse, do they 
not terminate on the person or object immersed? yes. 
Well, in the same grammatical relation the same words stand 
to objects sprinkled, others moistened, made wet, stained, 
colored, all by affusion, yet the verbs took the direct accusa- 
tive case in all such instances. The same verbs in many 
cases that mean sprinkle mean to stain, to wet, and surely to 
moisten, wet or stain is not to scatter in drops. In Greek 
nothing is more common than to say sprinkle a man — any 



Mode of Baptism. 325 

one — ranein Una, rainein anthropon, rainein seanton, sprhikie 
oneself, etc. David says, Ps. xli, 9, so it runs in Greek, ran- 
teis me; Latin, adsperges me; ^yvmQ^rusi — all being "sprinkle 
me with hyssop." So we constantly read in all languages — 
Heb. ix, 13, 19, 21 — Moses sprinkled the book, people, taber- 
nacle, and vessels of the ministry. Herodotus says, "the 
priests commanded the people entering the temples {rantidzein 
heantous) to sprinkle themselves with water." Did they scatter 
themselves in drops? Did David and Moses and Paul so 
mean ? ISTow the truth is, in the Hebrew there are sixteen to 
eighteen words all meaning at times to sprinkle ; fourteen to 
sixteen in Greek meaning to sprinkle. Some few apply more 
to scattering dust, ashes, etc., and then to dispersions; others 
to blood and staining elements, and come more readily to 
mean color, dye; others apply to water, hence to moisten, 
wet, wash, overflow, overwhelm then immerse — i. €., sink. 
]^ow our English word sprinkle has to stand for all these 
sprinklings. In some relations it answers to the disperse,, 
scatter in drops of the Latin, Greek, Hebrew^ in nine-tenths 
of cases our sprinkle has no such force, as Webster, "Worces^ 
ter, Richardson, etc, abundantly show, A lady sprinkles the 
floor, clothes— we ourselves, and it is perfect grammar in all 
languages, Semitic and Aryan. 

I quote the real Webster, for since 1860 it is not Webster, 
they have changed it wholly. "Sprinkle, 1. to scatter, to 
disperse." This is the sense Dr. Graves wants. Webster goes 
on " to be-sprinkle, as to sprinkle the earth with water; to 
sprinkle a floor, etc." 

Alex. Campbell, I think, began, that I must say, very silly 
argument,(?) but he never knew what philology was, however 
great or distinguished in some respects. Origen said "Elijah 
baptized the alt^r.^' We know it was by pouring. He was 
the most learned Greek father that ever lived. Basil said he 
baptized the wood on the altar, the water was poured. David 
baptized the couch, the rain baptized the land, the woman 
baptized Christ's feet — there is no ellipsis — it is distinctly 
clear. Is such a question as this, dividing the people so long 
a,nd sadly^ to be settled by such little, wholly untenable turns 



326 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

or dodges? There are great issues involved. This question 
turns on great principles of language. The Bible Union^ 
Conant, G. W. Eaton^ etc.^all held that "philological ground '^ 
is "the only ground admissible." So do Carson^ Gale and 
Campbell. Yet Dr. Graves dodges it all^ and would have voi^ 
believe it is. wholly irrelevant. 

Again^ the Doctor ins-ists that the Greek church always bap- 
tized by immersion, 

1. We proved in a former speech the contrary. He has not 
adduc-ed any fact to support his assertion. Of late years many 
writers have visited the Greek churchy and testify that they 
practice affusion and dipping both,, but three dips always when 
they dip. They "dip repeatedly," 

2.. If it were so that they dipped none^ what has that to do 
with apostolic practice ? The Greeks are steeped in ignorance 
and debauchery to-day^ and for centuries now have been. 
Their language to-day is vastly changed from its an oient form.. 
Superstition reigns supreme among them. I go to ancient 
Greeks the Bible^ and contemporaneous writers— not to the 
benighted ones, to-day known as the Greek chureh. How 
different the Jewish, Roman Catholic and Greek rites from 
those of 1800 years ago I All the Greek church baptizes 
infants, D^ you accept that ? 

3. We showed that in the Greek church, I^atin church — in 
all the early churches— affusion was practiced. 

4. Better than all, v,^e showed that the apostolic age. and all 
previous ages, whally practiced affusion. Dr. Graves says 
Kouma and Gazes did not write on classic Greek,, but modern 
Greek. He should be better posted. They both wrote in mod- 
ern Greek on ancient Greek. On baptoand hetptid'zo- they make- 
elaborate comments o-n citations from the earliest Greek 
classics — Aristophanes,. Plato, etc.,. etc., as well as Homer, the 
earliest of all. Gazes^ definition and comment on bcbptidzo is. 
ten times as extended as L.id dell and Scott^s — his fa^"orite,and 
on other words. It is based on Schneider^s gi^eat German, 
lexicon. Lt accords more with Passow, Rost and Palm thaii 
with any other extant^ showing how excellent and accurg.tQ. 
It is. 



Mode of Baptism. 327 

That hajpto in the Septuagint never submerged an object — 
put it clear under the element, is fuUj explained by the way 
all the great folio lexicons, as well as the best Manuals define 
the Hebrew tabhal, of which bapto is a rendering in the in- 
stances cited. If it "merely touches the liquid" — "the object 
ixiereiy touches the liquid." We will give a few texts and 
facts to show the truth of this, as bapto and tahhal often answer 
to each other. 

These facts demonstrate 

1. That bal always carries sprinkle as its fundamental sig- 
nification, 

2. It perfectly aocords with the unvarying laws of universal 
language, as far as all Aryan and Semitic tongues go, with 
which alone w^e have to do. 

3. We have also seen that the meaning tabhal has, cannot 
be derived from immerse as a primary meaning of tabhaL 
Indeed tabhal never means to immerse in the Bible. Not a 
place can be found. It does sometimes mean "to dip," where 
the object is never enveloped in the liquid, but "merely 
touches it." Dr. Brents said "if he could wield the power, he 
could dip an elephant in a spoonfull of blood." Franklin, 
Tenn., Dec. '73. 

4. In no instance was tahhal designed for mode, that not 
being essential, but in most cases a partial moistening, e. g^ 

(1) Ex. xii, 22, a branch of hyssop saturated with lamb's blood. 

(2) Lev. iv, 6. (3) 17, the priest moistens his fingers with 
blood. Bapsei apo ton aimatos^ not in, but by means of the 
blood. (4) Lev. xiv, 6 : "As for the living bird, he shall take 
it, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and 
shall dip them and the living bird in the blood of the bird 
that was killed over the running water." (5) Lev. xiv, 49-53 : 
"And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar 
wood, and scarlet, and hyssop: 

"And he shall kill the one of the birds in an earthen vessel 
over running water: 

"And he shall take the cedar wood, and the hyssop, and 
scarlet, and living bird, and dip ^hem in the blood of the slain 



328 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

bird, and in the running water, and sprinkle tlie house seven 
times." Dip them, (tabhal) baptize them with the blood, etc. 

Immersion is out of the question here. The wings and head 
of the bird were not even moistened, as it had to be let go and 
ily ofi", (v. 53) and so kept free from the blood. 

6. Gen. xxxvii, 31: "And they took Joseph's coat, and 
killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood : 

"And they sent the coat of many colors, and they brought 
it to their father ; and said, This have we found; know now 
whether it be thy son's coat or no. 

"And he knew it, and said, It is my son's coat; an evil 
beast hath devoured him ; Joseph is without doubt rent in 
pieces." 

"And baptized the coat with blood" — the Hebrew reads, 

1. The design was to make the father believe a wild beast 
had slain Joseph. 

2. 'No beast would immerse all ones outer or inner coat 
slaying any one. 

3. Jacob knew the coat of many colors. If of many colors, 
it was not immersed in blood, could not have been enveloped, 
submerged in it, but was sprinkled with blood. The Peshito 
renders it " sprinkled with blood." The Greek reads 
" stained." But Stephanus says, quoting it, that primativi 
the primative meaning [_of molunein — stain, here] is to sprinkle, 
— conspergere. Y, 6233. Now, save in the case of Joseph's 
coat, the Greek of these is Lapto, and never implies immersion, 
but a momentary, partial dip, where it is dip — as my finger in 
this drop of water here on the board. There was no im- 
mersion. 

He asks me where it is that Origen, Irenseus and Hippolytus 
said haptidzo meant to sprinkle? I said they translated hapto 
to sprinkle, not naming haptidzo. The Doctor is a little hard 
of hearing, and a little confused. " Jordan is a hard road to 
travel" just now with him. Origen was the most scholarly, 
the best informed of all the fathers in all ages of the ancient 
church from apostolic times down. He translates bapto 
sprinkle — errantismenon. Irenaeus, born before John died, 



Mode of Baptism. 329 

translates it sprinkle. (Against Heresies, ch. iv, eh. xx, 11), 
Hippo] jtus, a learned Archbishop, contemporary with Origen, 
writing A. D. 220, copies bapto in Rev. xxi, 13, then in the 
same verse translates it sprinkle. (Against IN'oetus, ch. xv). 
IS'ow all Baptists assert — A. Campbell asserts that bapto and 
baptidzo are exactly the same in meaning. Here then we have 
the three most learned and pious and pure Greeks of the 
second and opening of the third century, as well as all the 
oldest and best versions on earth, giving sprinkle for bapto. 
Did not these learned Greeks know their own language? 
And would lexicographers be faithful to their duty, if they 
failed to give such meanings ? No sir ! These lexicographers 
still follow, to a great extent, lexicons made by dippers, by 
parties dipped themselves, under statutory provisions for dip- 
ping in all cases, save where certificates testified, from the 
hands of physicians, that the parties were |_infants] too delicate 
to be dipped. When the most learned of Greeks, like Aris- 
totle, uses bapto for moisten, where by pressing or squeezing a 
iuicy matter it oozes or spurts out on the hand, both moisten- 
ing and (anthidzo) staining it. When, in the fifth century B. 
C, Hippocrates say 3 of the coloring fluid, " when it drops 
{epitaxce epi) upon the garments, they are haptaV^ — stained, and 
Alcibiades uses it [born B. C. 400] for asperse^ just as we 
do; when the most erudite Greek, born only 85 years after 
the death of John, translates it sprinkle — when the learned 
and cautious Irenseus, born before John died, bosom friend of 
John's most distinguished disciple, Polycarp, when he, a 
native born Greek, wrote in Greek, translates it sprinkle. 
Then this learned Greek, Hippolytus, copies hapto in same 
age of Origen, and translates it sprinkle. Seven other of the 
best versions of the world do the same. Then ask yourselves 
what must have been the prejudice of these lexicographers — 
themselves dipped — under a law demanding dipping ; and what 
the blinding prejudice of Sophocles, his late iron age, Greek 
lexicographer and immersionist, that they would not recognize 
these facts? Aye, even "baptized with tears," they try to 
conceal by a shameful, disgraceful rendering, "^a/fA^f/ in tears;" 
as if Greek literature were not full of the fact that, if parties 
failed of baptism, it was held by all in that day, that their 



330 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

falling tears, or poured out blood, baptizing them as it did, 
would be accepted as baptism. I think bapto is settled. 

He says Leigh gives "overwhelm'' for baptidzo. ^o, no. 
That is another author quoted by Leigh on the immersion 
side. 

He says I omitted the first definition of Passow. Far from 
it I read it out distinctlj^, and the second, also, as well as the 
next. The record will show that, in my first reply, I gave his 
first classic meaning — " immerse,"then " submerge." He is ex- 
cessively anxious to catch me in some mistake or blunder, or 
misquotation. We tell him now, you will never do it. Your 
partisans may report me as saying this or that — they may pub- 
lish, as in Kentucky, Texas, Alabama, and elsewhere, often 
they have done, that I said this and that, but they knew it 
was untrue when they said so. We may err in judgment, as 
all men are liable; may make an unobserved slip of the 
tongue, as when men say Haman for Mordecai, or vice versa, 
but as to facts, quotations, etc., we make no mistakes. 

But, if it not immerse, by what authority do we baptize by 
dipping ? Under what meaning of the word do we "immerse ?" 
We reply, we do not accept the dip — the act of immersion and 
emersion, as the baptism. It is the fact that water was ele- 
ment — brought into contact with them, that we recognize, not 
the mode of it. Were you so enveloped in impenetrable suits 
of clothes as that no water reached you at all, though dipped 
forty times and sunk — immeresed twenty feet deep for an 
hour we would not accept it as baptism. You were dipped 
you were immersed, truly, and in — yea, under water, but 
not baptized. You doubtless understand us now. 

We tell the Doctor in sober earnestness, Ligham from whom 
he quotes, has left out, in a host of cases, the sprinkle and 
pour, of the lexicons, as we can prove, having them here be- 
fore us. Kot only that, but he mistranslates unintentionally, 
as I think A. Campbell also has done, on Stephanus, Scapula, 
etc. For example — this phrase under baptidzo — "as we im- 
merse any thing in water (aquce) for the purpose of dyeing or 
cleansing, etc., {tingendi aut abluend.i.) I^ow 1. He makes 
b<(ptidzo apply to dyeing, which it never does, as they all know. 



Mode of Baptism. 331 

2. He and Dr. Graves make these great scholars say things were 
immersed in water 10 dye or cleanse. Is it usual to immerse 
things in water (aqua) both to dye and to clens'i them ? This 
is only one proof of a hundred of the carelessness and one- 
sidedness of immersionists. They are blinded hy partisanship 
' — good, clever people, but given over too much to one-sided 
views. 

But Robinson (Ed.) has it immerse, he says. But you are 
anchored to the first meaning, and the first he gives is "dip 
in" — not out — spoken of ships, classic use. The record is 
"sink;'^ that is a correct rendering, but it will not suit you. 
"In the New Testament, to wash, to lave, cleanse by washing.'' 
Then in a note, "ablution or affusion is the more general idea," 
he says. 

Stephanus gives "sink" and "overw^helm" as classic use ; 
"w^ash," "cleanse," as 'New Testament use. That tells it alL 

Dr. Graves asks the old question, Ifyougavea lady your hand- 
kerchief to wash it and she should just sprinkle a little water on 
it, would it be washed? How often I've heard that! Now, 
my good friend, we call your attention to this also as a strik- 
ing additional evidence of the want of attention and study on 
the part of our good immersion friends. You thought there 
was argument in that ; even Dr. Graves thought so. We 
hope to learn you to look at both sides more ; not to be so easi- 
]y led off into error. Suppose you had just dipped the hand- 
kerchief, would it be washed? Look now how easily duped 
you are ! Suppose my face needs washing, your child, your 
carriage, fioor, table? hundreds of things, how various the pro- 
cesses. 

He quotes Ast for "cover over." Now there it is again. — 
Ast wrote a lexicon only on the Greek of Plato, and haptidzo 
occurs only three times in Plato. In all three it is metaphori- 
cally used, and rendered "overwhelm" every time by Conant, 
A Cambell, and all other authorities, save such as render it in- 
toxicate. Ast's word is "o6ri<o," ob down, and ruo^ to rush, fall, 
descend, a clear case of affusion as the basis of this metaphor- 
ical use. 



332 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Liddell and Scott's little school boy lexicon is brought up 
again, issued so late as 1849. Well, they were only eight 
years making it. The spare time from other duties devoted 
to it did not allow them but a moment or so to each word. On 
this point it is simply, as in almost all else, an abridgment 
and translation. What value is it when only a moment is spent 
in translating the word ? Schleusner, Stokius, Suicer, etc., 
studied the occurrences of the word. This one goes no high- 
er up for a literal meaning than Plutarch, years after Christ. 
His first meaning is "dip repeatedly !" Is that your practice ? 
Where is his proof text for that ? In Plato he renders it 
"overwhelm," as do others. Here is drench, wet, steep in this 
edition of Dr. Graves'; his author is crazy too, badly so. He 

renders it "draw water." Where has it that meaning ? Ko- 
where at all. Bapto may mean that, never baptidzo. The silly 

— I ought to say dunce — makes a Greek smith dip into water 
"the red-hot steel" to temper it. You have seen smiths dip 
red-hot steel into cold water to temper it ! That is under bapto. 
He says the learning of the wold forced L. and S. to take "pour 
upon" out of his lexicon ! It was Baptist intolerance, not 
learning. Why did the learning not force Passow, Rost and 
Palm to take "sprinkle, sprinkle upon, pour upon" out of 
theirs? It is used by all the great universities of Germany, 
all her great commentators, and critics, and professors ! Why 
not compel Schleusner, Stokins, Suicer, Schaetgennius, Wol- 
fius, Gazes, Koums, Schneider, Swarzius, etc., to take it out of 
their's as well as Wahl ? Wahl did not have it in his first or 
second edition of 1829, but the learning of the world compel- 
led him in the edition of 1831 to insert it. Why did not the 
learning of the world assail those old Greeks of learning, Ori- 
gen, Irenseus, Hippolytus — those old translators of the apos- 
tolic age, and subsequently, to erase sprinkle from bapto ? 
Why not force those great giants of intellect, Castell,Buxtorff, 
Schindler, who lived and toiled through musty foilos and cob- 
webbed alcoves through life, when they render baptize by 
sprinkle, pour, and words meaning pour, sprinkle by baptize in 
those languages? Yea, and if it "merely touches the liquid 
in part or in whole." 

The truth is Liddell and Scott's lexicon is made to make 



Mode of Baptism. 



333 



money out of its sales. It is for colleges and academies. Bap- 
tists would not patronize it if the offensive word "pour upon" 
was there. Our people, far from being so intolerant, paid no 
attention to it, as is usual with them. They forced the pub- 
lishers in America even to erase "pour [water for washing]," 
which even his Ingham will tell him is in the English editions 
to day, under louo. As louo often interchanges with baptidzo 
Baptists could not tolerate that either. But Liddell and Scott 
have changed so often, all in a brief time, too, it is to be hoped 
they will get settled. 

]N'ow, gentlemen, where is my worthy opponent ? He has 
attempted to break the force of my classic Greek demonstra- 
tion ; he utterly failed ; he felt the force of my lexicons ; he 
dashed against them gallantly ; befell back in disorder and 
confusion. I:^ow, what can he do? His people feel the press- 
ure, it is painfully severe to them. If ingenuity, or learning, 
and care, and study, and pains, with deepest anxiety, could do 
it, my distinguished and able opponent would do it; he would 
drive away the cloud and very midnight of gloom that spread 
over your cause. 

But, sirs, what does Dr. Graves offer to meet the crushing 
weight of facts we have adduced — facts his authorities never 
noticed, never thought of, but which no scholar dare question ? 
We treated bapio as we did baptidzo, tracing its earliest occur- 
rences, doing the very thing that the great Freund, in Latin, 
and Liddell and Scott say is the best and only sure way in 
Greek, viz : making lexica of each writer's use of the word 
and all in chronologic order. We showed that its primary 
meaning was to sprinkle, moisten. What does he offer in 
reply to these facts? He repeats the old song that to dye, 
stain, is the effect of dipping. But we proved this to be wholly 
false. We gave facts. He has never touched those facts. 
He cannot. Let the attentive student examine the facts, data, 
etc., we presented in our twelfth speech. There they stand 
unanswered — unanswerable. But lettinsr all of those facts 
pass, if stain, color, dye, be derived from dip, we will find it 
holding good in other words as well as bapto. 

Let us take the leading Greek words that mean to stain. 



334 'i^'^ GivEAT Carrollton Debate. 

color, besmear or smear, or dye, and see if it implies or comes 
from dipping, or favors affusion — application of the element 
to the object. 

1. Moluno. (1) Liddell and Scott: to stain, sully, defile, to 
sprinkle;" Groves: moluno, to dye, stain, discolor, tinge, etc.'' 

Stepbanus quotes an authority endorsing it, that the "prima- 
tive meaning is to sprinkle," aonspergere. Yet Dr. G-raves 
tells us that it does not mean to sprinkle any more than bapto. 
That may be so as a whole, since both mean to sprinkle. 

2. Tengo, L. ^ S., to wet, moisten, to bedew with, especially with 
tears, as dakrusi, to luash, to shed tears. Ombros etengto, a shower 
fell. To soften (properly by soaking, bathing, etc.) To dye, 
stain. Latin, linger e. 

Groves: tengo, to moisten, wet, water, sprinkle, bedew, to 
soften, soak, steep, relax, to tinge, dye, stain color, etc. 

3. Palasso, L. & S., "to besprinkle, stain," etc. Paluno, to 
sprinkle with flour, dust; to moisten. Groves, L. &. S. 

4. Anthidzo, L. & S., to strew with flowers, to deck as with 
flow^ers, and so to dge or stain with colors. Passive, to bloom, 
to be dyed or painted, sprinkled with white, browned. 

Stephanus, adspergo, sprinkle. 

Groves: to bud, blossom, etc., to strew with flowers, to 
color, tinge, dye. 

5. Chraino, L. & S., to touch slightly. Hence, to smear, to 
paint, to besmear, annoint, to stain, spot, to defile. 

Groves: To color, dye, stain, to smear, daub, paint, etc. 

6. Chrodzo. L. & S., to touch the surface of the body; gen- 
erally to touch, to impart by touching the surface, hence, to 
tinge, stain," etc. 

Groves: to color, paint, tinge, dye, to stain, etc. 

Chrotidzo, "to color, dye, tint," — L. & S. 

7. MiAiNO, L. nnd S. — To paint over, to stain, dye, defile, 
soil. " Groves : To stain, dye, color; to polish, defile, etc. " 

8. Spiloo, L. and S. — To stain, soil. Groves : To spot, stain, 
blot, defile." 



Mode of Baptism. 335 

9. Deuo Groves: To wet, water, moisten, bedew, sprinkle ; 
to tinge, dye, color, etc."' See L. and S. and Pickering on 
also. 

10. Take now bapto, " stain," "color," " d^-e." Liddell and 
Scott give it " color," " to d^e the hair," " steep in crimson." 
" Groves gives it " dye, stain, color," as well as dip and 
'• sprinkle," wet," '' moisten, etc." 

Now here are ten to thirteen words all meaning stain or dye, 
color. Take bajpto out. No one will contend that every one 
of the other ten to twelve words ever means dip in any way, 
or immmerse, not to ^'dj 'primarily. We see, then, in all these 
Greek words, stain, color, dye, come from primaries, where 
the application was almost exclusively by sprinkling, the other 
by touching with the element. Anthidzo^ from strewing, 
sprinkling flowers^ ornamenting thus, hence, to work flowers 
upon. Another word primarily meant " to touch the surface." 
The others meant to sprinkle, to bedew, moisten, anoint. 

In Latin, in Hebrew, in Arabic, etc., the average of facts is 
about the same exactly. It is a case demonstrated, 

1. That color, stain, dye, do hot come from dip, first, because 
no word, primarily meaning to dip, means to dye, stain, color; 
second, all words meaning to stain, color, d3'e, come from 
words of sprinkling and touching. 

2. That in all languages it is just the reverse, stain, color, 
dye, come from sprinkle. 

3. Bajpto^ the root of baptidzo, means stain, color, dye, oft- 
ener than all things else. Hence, as dye, color, stain, never 
comes from dip, immerse, bapto did not primarily mean to dip, 
but dip came from color, dye, while color, dye, came from 
stain; that from sprinkle, moisten, where the element 
sprinkled had coloring matter in it. 

Now what is Dr. G's reply to all our facts ? Why a bold 
assertion! Not a text quoted — not a Greek authority cited ! ! 
Not only this, but so misquotes my language also. I gave 
Kuhner, who has never had an equal, gave Passow, in his criti- 
cal knowledge of Greek, who, save the primary meaning, as 
he understands it, of bapto, " to tinge,^' and Dr. G. adds — i. e., 
'* to color slightly," as if it were K's explanation of his mean- 



33^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 

iiig, when no such words occur, and no such language is in my 
explanation of it! Is not this bold? But he says he and 
others misquoted are grammarians ! Only one or two were 
grammars — the rest all Lexicon's. But is not an author's 
explanation as good in a great original Greek grammar, at 
least as Anthonys is in a private letter 1. What turning and 
dodging here ? lie says " every Lexicon explains" hapto to 
dye as the effect of dipping. IN'ow we defy him to find any 
one that does so, save the one made by Stephanus, who was 
an immersionist, in a reign of immersion, when almost all the 
people were dipped, both in France and England, and the 
abridgments made directly and indirectly from him, as was 
Scapula, etc. 

But Dr. G. says these lexicographers are Pedobaptist wit- 
nesses, not one a Baptist. Are not Pedobaptists often rigid 
immersionists ? Every one of the first Lexicons made after the 
Greek was studied in the West, was by an immersionist. Every one 
of the first Greek editors and annotaters was an immersionist. 
So late as 1549 not a Greek lexicon or grammar published in 
England or Scotland. The first Greek works published were 
the later, iron age Greek, and the editions very defective. 
They were Pedobaptists — baptizers of children, but dippers. 
A. Campbell truly says : " The English Protestant Church 
was a Baptist church for a considerable time. The first Pro- 
testant King, Edward YI, was immersed. The first Pro- 
testant Queen, Elizabeth, was immersed." Debate with Rice, 
260. We quoted authorities on this before. 

He quotes Authon. We quoted him in our twelfth speech, 
and have Kuhner, Dalzel, a host of authors, all the native 
Greeks, the learned Greek Origen, w^ho composed over fifty 
folio volumes ; who was such a prodigy of learning, the King 
of Arabia sent for him to hear his wonderful learning; Hip- 
poly tus, Irenseus, and the whole church East, West, for 1500 
years, rendering and endorsing the rendering bapto by to 
•sprinkle This is the root of baptidzo. Baptists all say it is 
the same in meaning with baptidzo. 

Di*. Graves quotes Trommius as others on his side do. He 
never wrote a lexicon. It is a mere glossary by a Frosentine 



Mode of Baptism. 337 

whom Anthon, so eulogized by Dr. Graves, says was defective 
as a critic — giving the general opinion of scholars. 

Yossius gives sprinkle as a N^ew Testament meaning, and 
held that on Pentecost and other occasions, they were baptized 
by affusion. That shows what they meant by their definitions. 

Pickering gives wash, cleanse as the 'New Testament uses — 
literal, not figurative uses. Dr. Graves leaves out his words 
"in the New Testament," where Pickering shows it to be used 
as was nipto — a washing by pouring, and so evidently seen, 
that Geo. Campbel], Dr. Graves's favorite, renders it "wash, 
by pouring a little w^ater on their heads." So does A. Camp- 
bell. Pickering makes baptidzo in the New Testament mean 
the same. Is not Mark vii. 3, a literal washing ? Pickering 
refers to it as well as Wahl. Dr. Graves says Eld. Ditzler 
read Passow, and passed over sintauchen, eintauchen — immerse, 
ttubmerse. We did not do so. Wc told the Doctor, who is 
hard of hearing, that we read it. But we paused and empha- 
sized the words — " Generally, to sprinkle upon, to pour upon." 
We were then on what was the prevailing and primary 
meaning, referring to his theory and sustaining our position. 
By the way, Webster's late edition tells us, as I have said, that 
tracing the primary meaning and scientific inquiry into these 
facts, is a recent science — even mostly since Webster's death; 
and the editors employ Germans to trace, to some extent, 
primary meanings, while current ones are as well given by 
Webster as can well be. 

Dr. Graves leaves out both the Jirst meanings of Gazes and 
Kouma, and the "besprinkle" of the one, and the "pour 
upon" of the other. 

He now tells us it was thought for a while that zo, in baptidzo, 
indicated a repetition of the action. Yes, but scholars found 
out fifty years ago, that it did not. Yet Donnegan. Lid'^' 1! 
and Scott, etc., went blundering on, and held to tliu un-oi', 
while Kuhner clearly showed it was wrong, as well as Stuai't. 
In the same way Conant refutes Yossius who says baptidzo 
differs from dunai, to sink deep, where the object peri«hes. 
Now, Dr. Graves endorses this blunder in Yossius. Is it iiot 

astonishing? Dr. Conant adduces many instances where 

22 



338 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

dmiai, endunai, katadunai occur, and are almost invariably the 
words used for immersion in the Greek church. Conant gives 
so many cases, we need not quote any. Did they immerse 
that the object might perish? What silly criticism? Also, 
haptidzo often applies to objects perishing-, and Conant tells us 
so, and adduces many cases, and Dr. Graves gave us a few 
cases. Yet, now, he quotes Yossius, and forgets he is on 
record against it. 

He quotes Scapula, and to evade the force of our exposures. 
Dr. Graves mistranslates the Latin in a wav we never saw. 
Ut quae tlngendi aut abluendi gratia aqua imraergimus — which is 
as we immerse things in water for the purpose of wetting or 
cleansing them. Dr. Graves renders " as we immerse anything 
for the sake of d^^eing or washing in water II " He puts a comma ( ,) 
after ^'•aut " where Scapula has none, perverts the Latin horridly, 
and makes Scapula say we immerse anything for the sake of 
washing in water!/ A glance at the Latin will show a mere 
tyro how ridiculous is his dodge — unprecedented. But to 
hope to expose all his blunders is vain. A host of errors we 
leave over for our next reply. He perverts Schleusner utterly. 
He perverts Stokius as badly. We reserve to our next speech 
a full reply. We quoted them just as they are. He utterly 
misrepresents them. ISTot a fact has he met — not a point in 
philology has he attempted to meet, and he never will. Once 
more let us notice primaries. 

That you may see how little, men are settled on the primary 
meaning of bapto and baptidzo, we called your attention to the 
fact that they give us no rule, no law, by which to discover 
it. They difi'er evident] v anion 2^ themselves. Some a^ive im- 
merse first, some dip in, some dip repeatedly, some wash, or 
cover, some overwhelm. Some, like Wahl, and Liddell and 
Scott, change every new edition they make. Moses Stuart 
tells the uncertainty of it when he says of ba'pto — bap — the 
root: "Immersing or plunging" is ''probably the original" 
meaning. "I have supi?osed the original and literal meaning 
of the root bap to bo that of dipping or plunging." — p. 43. 

We want something better — we have it. Meantime the 
whole weight of all their own great writers, ignored bv Dr. 



Mode of Baptism. 339 

Graves, is, from the results exhibited, sohd and unanswerable 
against the Doctor. Suffusion is the only Scriptural mode of 
baptism. 

Dr. G. hates to give up the classic Greek. He says it is a 
rule that where eis is placed before the name of an element or 
object, that entrance from without to a point within, is indicat- 
ed. That is not the case. The context must determine it. 
We put many cases in evidence where parties went eis towards 
the sea, eis to the Jordon,met eis at the Jordon, ship launched 
miNTO the deep, but not under the element, a ring placed eis 
on the hand, etc., etc. Why so boldly assert what is not cor- 
rect. 

The Doctor wholly mistakes me on en and dative of where^ 
wherein in speech 13. His rule is simply not applicable. We 
never denied the where, or wherein, as he knows. We deny 
that when John said baptize en with tire, en with the spirit, 
that he alluded to the place where they were to be baptized, 
but to the instrumeniality with which — the element with which 
they were to be baptized. It was dsitive of instrum£nt. Anoint 
en with oil. Wash thee en with water. He shall cleanse the 
house en hyssop, en the blood of a bird. We showed that 41 
times consecutively thus en occurs. In one verse five times 
thus it occurs, where the word sprinkle in Greek and Hebrew 
occurs. Why does he not meet those cases ? Whv all this 
evasion ? 

He takes up the classics again. There is no proof of immer- 
sion. There is no proof that Agamemnon immersed. To 
plunge even proves not immersion as used by Dr. Graves. A 
man or horse plunges in water, yet goes not entirely under. — - 
He "baptized eis at or in the sea." If he had stood on its edge 
at its edge and baptized, eis was a most proper word to be 
used. Hence the citation proves nothing. The blister plas- 
ter or ancient pessary, made of verdegris, honey, and other el- 
ements had simply to be moistened with or in "the milk of a 
woman.'^ So the Greek reads eis gala gunikos. Who believes 
it was submerged in the milk of a woman ? It was not the 
way or process. Kuhner's grammar and all others completely 
sustain me, as he knows. He takes one use of en as if it were 



340 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

every use — a most constant habit with Dr. Graves. Kuhner 
puts it en at by, where used locally — of where, etc. So does 
Passow, Liddell and Scott, and all authorities. Dr. Graves 
cites en as to time, when . What has it to do here ? We have 
onlv to do with two uses of en. 1. Local use — in, at, bv, 
near, etc. 2. Instrumentality — tvith, by means of — speak en 
with the voice, cleanse en with water, en with blood. 

But remember that Matthew, Mark and John, as all scholars 
agree, use " Syricisims " constantly. 

The great Walton, whose prolegomena is simply the store 
house of other scholars, says: "For the New Testament being 
written in Greek, whose vernacular language was Syriac, 
every vv^here savors of Syrianisms." Hence Ludovicus, author 
of a Sj'riac lexicon, etc., affirms that the true import of the 
phraseology of the New Testament can scarcely be learned 
except from the Syriac. They conceived in Syriac what they 
ivrote in Greek," — Modock's Apo. to Peshito, 498, 499. So 
agree all eminent critics, 

Now, in Hebrew and Syriac they always used the preposi- 
tion for instrumentalitv in all these cases. Gesenius, immer- 
sionist, quotes be or vhe with as, the equivalent of en, with, 
and elaborately supports it, showing that the Greeks used en 
to correspond with the be of Hebrew and Syriac, etc. Be also 
often means by, at, in, on, of place. Hence the three writers 
whose style was Syriac, use en for with, as did the Septuagint 
translators also. But all agree Luke wrote often in pure 
classic G-reek. Hence Ae never uses en where the three who 
thought in Syriac but wrote in Greek (though Matthew first 
wrote in Syriac) say en in the cases cited — baptize en with 
water, with the Spirit. He simpl}^ has it hudati "with water," 
furi^ with fire, pneionati, with the spirit. This settles that 
matter. See Gesenius, Thesaurus and lexicon, under be., 
Furst, Uhlerman's Syr. gram. etc. 

And when I emphatically deny that eis primarily means 
i7ito, I do what his dear Liddell and Scot, Passow, Post & 
Palm, and all later and abler scholars do. 

But he says I mistranslate and misunderstand Example 39 
of Conant. Indeed. He renders it, " and already becoming 



Mode of Baptism. 341 

immersed (baptized) and wanting little of sinking, some of the 
parties at first attempted to leave, and get aboard of their own 
bark." IN'ow Dr. Graves makes the absurd statement that the 
pirates, "were already becoming immersed," yet had not left 
the vessel 1 E'ow if they were on the vessel, as he admits, 
(and the text shows they were) how could they be " often im- 
mersed" on the vessel? But the text says — say it is the pirates 
he speaks of particularly, and that the ship was not about to 
be immersed, how could they be endangered and immersed 
on the vessel they had seized, if it was not about to sink ? 
Where the danger they had to flee? 

Verily the legs of the lame are unequal. But if it is only 
of the pirates, it is so much the worse, They were on the 
vessel. It was not sinking. Then it reads, " and being 
already baptized, and wanting but little of being immersed.^' 
Will he deny that katadunai means immerse here? ]^ow if 
bajptidzo immerses them, how could it be so in a vessel not 
about to sink? How could it be said they "wanted little of 
immersing" — being immersed, if already they were im- 
mersed? What ridiculous positions! 

The ridiculous puerility of Br. Graves' remarks scarcely 
•deserves notice on Example 22. Because baptidzo applies to 
being drunk in Plato and Plutarch, does it imply that in all 
■cases it is to make drunk? Because it means primarily to 
sprinkle, does it imply that, when it applies to a sinking ship ? 
But Br. Graves commits himself to the absurd position that 
baptidzo puts merely under the element, but kataduni sinks to 
the bottom! I^ow Conant not only tells him this is wholly 
untrue, but shows it by great numbers of examples. 

1. Baptidzo in Josephus, Plutarch, etc., sends to the bottom 
every vessel or person it puts under, as well as in other 
Greek. 

2. In the 4th century and onwards katadunai is constanly 
used where they baptized by immersion. Conant quotes too 
many eases to need citation. He will not deny it Hence, 
Dr. Graves' whole theory, all he says, as a whole, everything 
he says is just so much error unsupported. He has dragged 
out all the old errors and blunders of all past writers^ and 



342 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

now is head and ears swamped in the eumbroos mass. Ho 
discriminates not between the good and the had, the hughest 
blunders and the most accurate criticisms. What progress 
can be made where a drag-net is to pull all the old blunders, 
now abandoned by all sides, into prominence again ? 

He says I define aei ''now," by all the time. I did so from 
the first, always, all the time. He pretends that I say of Ex- 
ample 16, pressing him to the bottom and holding hi^ there. 
Does his cause need such misquotations?' Or is he getting 
witty, or has he rubbed up against Ewing? He would render 
aei on the authority of scholars ^'frequently." Yes, old im- 
m.ersionist dreamers of the very dawn of the revival of learn- 
ing, and largely these are his " scholars," and these old im 
mersionists are his Pedobaptists generallyc 

Into everlasting life— a compound always of this word means 
"/regwen^" life, frequent punishment instead of always contin- 
uous ! Thus he says anything, drives anyway, steers to any 
port to get out o± the pelting storm. Alas, it still pours on. — 
The oil is not the means with which the tow was baptized, he 
informs us now, but points out the place where the baptism took 
place ? Wherein^ where^ case I ! And the proof is he baptized 
the tow elaio with oil. So the Greek reads. But Dr. Graves is 
so full of jokes that he wishes to relieve the debate of serious- 
ness. To complete this he makes the smiths plunge a '■'mass 
of red hot iron drawn from the furnaces" into water to tem- 
per it. 

His case where Philip baptizes is not bapUdzo but diahofptidzo^ 
and not in point See my 13th speech, pages 295-6. It is use- 
less to repeat. It was not a case of dipping. 

Finally, waxing desperate, stung to blindness, the Doctor 
quotes hapto for baptidzo where Aristophanes has it wash the 
wool — he renders the baptousi wash, by dip, and puts it baptidze 
sthai and repeats the blunder, professing to quote Cowart, 79, 
" dipped in dye/' baptisthan en bammati. l^ow baptidzo never 
applies to dye, nor puts an object in bammati dye. If the Dr. 
will just think or look, he'll see his blunders here. But to ex- 
pose them all is a job to weary Hercules. Classic baptidza 
Eever dips^ Whenever it puts living beings muder the element^ 



Mode of Baptism. 34-5 

thcj perish. On the baptism of Benaial he quotes "all the 
little particles of hail" with which the Jew baptized, as if it 
said " breaking all the ice/' as if to immerse. There is no 
ice, but the "little particles of hail." We gave the amount 
ot water with which such a Jew baptized. One-fifth of a pint 
sufficed. Less than a man would drink, sufficed, as a case of 
that kind occurred. 

The Clemens Alexandrinus case he touches lightly also. 

He renders " sprinkled herself with water/' bathed. I do not 

object. It shows how they bathed. The Greek is raino, which 

so often Dr. G. tells us is the Greek for sprinkle, and hudor 

water. If he prefers bathe where it is " sprinkles with water,'' 

all right. You will know what bathed means hereafter, when 

he renders baptidzo bathed, amad, " bath" — it is " sprinkle 

with water.'^ He insists baptize on the couch is to " bathe 

after sleeping." Not a ¥/ord of it. 1. He cites Homer twice 

where the parties wash — one at the hoary sea, the other before 

prayer, " sprinkles herself with water." l^ow it is of this 

kind of baptism he speaks. Ancient writers allude to this 

castom. Hervetus says of this case : 

Hervetus: ''The Jews washed themselves not only at sacrifices, but 
also at feasts, and this is the reason why Clement says that they were 
purified or washed upon a couchj" i. e., a dining couch or triclinium. To 
this Mark refers ch. vii, and Matt, xv, 2. Turtullian refers to it when he 
says, '' Judseus Israel quotodie lavat. The Jewish Israel washes every 
day." 

The "Apostolic Const.," 66^ alluding tx) a Jew says, "Unless they bap- 
tize themselves daily they do not eat ; still further, unless they purify 
(kabaroosin) with water their couches, and plates, and cups, and goblets, 
and seats, they will not use them at all." 

Thus we see all the facts stand out in support of affusion. 

But Clement makes "washing the hands at the hoary sea," 
and "sprinkling with water," to be images of the baptism 
enjoined by Moses. Nay, it was handed down "by the poets 
from Moses." This, then, was the baptism from Moses handed 
down — to wash the hands to sprinkle with water. — [ Time out. 



3-1-4 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FIFTEENTH SPEECH. 

Mr. President. — He says he has proved that the Greek 
church does not always baptize by immersion I I will say this 
for my opponent, and he will doubtless regard it as a compli- 
ment, that he has done what no living man before him ever 
did, and what no man living besides him would do, having a 
proper regard for his own reputation, viz., deny that the 
Greek church always immerses for baptism. 'No fact is better 
known, whatever other rites they may add to this one, every 
scholar knows that they consider the immersion as the baptis- 
mal act. 

4. I do not deny that affusion was practiced in the Latin 
church for baptism, but I do most emphatically deny that it 
ever was in the Greek church. The Latin church, in cases 
of necessity, sprinkled, but it never held or taught that asper- 
sion was the apostolic practice. 

5. M}^ opponent mistakes with reference to a clear matter 
of fact when he represents' me as saying, that Kouma and 
Gaze did not write on classic Greek. I never used any such 
expression at all, but I did say that they wrote in modern 
Greek, were commentators rather than lexicographers, and of 
light authority. 

What I have to say about the Hebrew tabal, will be said 
when I come to versions, and it will be found altogether 
against his case. 

He was off on bapto again, a word never used for baptism, 
for nearly one half of his last speech. It is very well, when 
he has nothing else to say, he can discourse on that. Because, 
secondarily, it means "to dye," " tinge," since dyeing is done 
by immersion, and that is as near as he has got to making out 
his " sprinkle" from baptidzo. Mark one thing, he has not yet 
produced a standard lexicon that gives " to sprinkle" or " to 
pour" as the literal, current definition of either bapto or bap- 



Mode of Baptism. 345 

tidzo^ much less" to moisten," or " wet in any way." I have re- 
peatedly challenged him to do so, and he has not, and I again 
challeno^e him to the task. If his assertions are true, whv 
don't he produce some show of authority to sustain them. 

8. Sophocles is regarded as a lexicon of standard authority 
by American and German scholars, and he says that baptidzo 
never did mean anything different from "to dip," "to im- 
merse," and he has critically examined the entire period from 
one hundred and ten years before Christ to eleven hundred 
years after Christ. I assert again, that wherever hapto is used 
to denote "to dye," it is used in its secondary significatir>u, 
and "to sprinkle" is no more a proper signification of it than 
it is of our English verb to dii^. This is the way that all lexi- 
cographers and critics have settled it, and Eld. Ditzler, nor 
Dale, nor au}^ other man can unsettle it. I shall refer to ba]jto 
no more in this debate. 

9. He shall not mislead you with respect to Leigh. He 
brought him forward as an important witness on his side, and 
I have shown that his testimony is all against him. I will 
soon give his testimony in full as to the proper meaning and 
N'ew Testament use of baptidzo. 

10. The reporter's notes show that when you brought for- 
ward Passow, you did not give the primary meaning until 
I called upon you to do it. 

11. I know not what my opponent means by my " partizans 
in Kentucky, Texas, and Alabama, and elsewhere " misrepre- 
senting him. I have no partizans, nor do I believe that a 
Baptist in these States has ever misrepresented my oppo- 
nent's positions. As editor I see all they have said through 
the press, and I am certain he has repeated in this debate 
every strange thing charged upon him. 

You have heard how he has used Schleusner in support of 
his position, that baptidzo, while it sometimes is used in the 
sense of "to dip," "to immerse," in classic Greek, yet it is 
never used in this sense in the New Testament! and he even advises 
me, when I want to know what Schleusner does say, to go to 
his book (the Ditzler- Wilkes Debate); that he and his friend 
made that book to instruct the people. iTow, I happen to 



34^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 

have Schleusner in mv baud, as well as Eld. Ditzler's "book," 
and I wisb to sbow you the kind of instruction tbat I find in 
it. I have said, tbat intentionally or tbrougb ignorance, be 
bas, by suppressing a very important part of a sentence, made 
Scbleusner say wbat be does not say, and wbat be never in- 
tended to say — be bas suppressed bis testimony, and put a lie 
in bis lips 

I will place before you wbat Eld. Ditzler makes bim say, 
and tben wbat Scbleusner really does say, and leave you to 
decide if my opponent's translation and representations of 
bis autbors sbould be implicitly relied upon. I quote from 
tbe speecb of Eld. Ditzler in tbe Debate, pp. 487, 488 : 

'■'• Babtidzo. 1. Proprie: imrneri,o ac intingo,in aquam 7nergo, ahapto * * * 
In hoc autem significatione nunquam in N. T. sed eo frequentius in 
Scriptt. Gr. legitui', v. c. Doid. Sic. 1. c. 36, de Nilo exeundante* * Strabo, 
Lib. xii. 391, etc., etc. Jam, quia baud raro aliquid imniergi ac intingi 
in aquam solet, utlavetur, hinc 2. abluo, lavo, aquajpurgo notat. Siclegitur 
in IST. T. Marc. vii. 4, Tiai apo agoras ean me baptizontai ( in quibusdam codd. 
rantisontai), ouk esthionsi et res, in foro coemtas, nisi prius aqua abutse et 
purgatse fuerint, non edunt. Luk. xi. 38 * ••• ebaptisthe -■• * lavasse. Baptizesthai 
non solum lavai-e^ sed etiam se lavare significare, multis locis probare potest. 
3 Hinc tYSu-nsferQiuv 2i6. baptismi ritum sole mnem, etc. 4. Metaphorics: ut 
Lat. imbuOj large et copoise do, atque suppedito largiier prof undo.'" 

'■'■ Baptidzo. 1. Properly : to immerse or to dip, to plunge into water, 
from bapto ■-•• *■ But in this sense it never occuks in the New Testa- 
ment, but in it frequently in ( classic ) Greek writers, for example, Diodo- 
rus Sicidus 1, cb. 36, used of the overflow of the JSTlle, in Strabo, etc., etc. 
Now because not rarely ( not unfrequeutly ) a thing is accustomed to be 
immersed or dipped in water, that it may be cleansed, hence, 2. it means to 
cleanse, to wash [i. e., in any way that will cleanse), to purify WITH water-. 
Thus (in t'^is sense) it occurs in the New Testament. Mark vii. 4, and 
( having come ) from the public place, they wUl not eat unless first they 
baptize themselves ( Latin of S. ) ; and things purchased in the market 
they wlQ not eat, unless first cleansed and purified with water. In many 
te'Kts it i^rantisontai, sprinkle {i. e., for baptized). Luke xi. 38 -^ * baptized 
— wash, baptizesthai ) to baptize), not only means to wash but also to wash 
one^s self, as can be proved in many places. 3. Hence, it is transferred to 
the solemn rite of baptism, etc. 4. Metaphorically : as ( t e., equivalent 
to) the LattQ to imbue, to give and administer to (any one) largely, to 
POUR FORTH abundantly." 

As 1 bave notbing more to say on ha2:>to, I will now meet 
bis cbarge tbat I bave perverted Scbleusner and Stokius, 
and sbow you wbo is tbe guilty party, and guilty beyond pre- 
cedent. 



Mode of Baptism, 347 

These are the remarks and the use he has made of his own 

perversion of his author: 

"Now, while Schleusner gives immerse and dip, he takes eare to say it 
never occurs in this sense in the New Testament. But they leave that 
out. Here Schleusner, whom CampbeU holds up as one of the best lexi- 
cographers in the world, defines baptidzo^ as a classic word, by immerse, 
and gives a number of references, such as the submergence of land by 
water, immersion of animals, people, etc., and then says it nevei- has this 
signification in the New Testament. They leave that out; it defeats their 
ends."— Debate, p. 488. 

^ow, this is as it stands in Schleusner's Lexicon, under 
baptidzo, with the sentence that Elder Ditzler suppresses. 

" Baptidzo. l.Proprie : immergo ac intingo in aquam mergo, a bapto, et 
respondet Hebraico taval. 2, Reg. v. 14, in vers. Alex, et tavt apud Sym- 
machum Psalm Ixviii, 5, et apud incertum^ Ps. ix. 6. In hoc signiflcatione 
nunquam in N. T. sed eo frequentius in Scripptt. Gr. legitur. v. c, Diod. 
Sic 1, eh. 36 de Nilo exundante (toon chersaioon therioon ta palla hupo 
ton potomon peri lephthenta dia jahthehetai baptizomena") — Gr. 

Which he renders into Latin : 

"Multa terrestrium animalium a fiumine deprehensus submersione 
periunt." 

Which I translate : 

Properly: to plunge intOj and dip in, to sink into water from bapto and cor- 
responds to the Hebrew taval^ 2 Kings v. 14, in the Alexandrian version 
[the Septuagmt], to t-^va in Symmachus Psalm Ixviii. 5, and in an un- 
known writer in Psalm ix. 6. In this signification it is never used in th^e 
New Testament, but frequently in Greek writers, for example V. G. Diod. 
Sic. 1. c. 36, concerning the overflow of the Nile. Many land animals, 
overtaken by the river, perish by the submersion. 

After quoting from Strabo to the same end, Schleusner 

says : 

"Jam quia hand raro aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet, ut 
lavetur, hinc. 2) Abluo, lavo, aqua, purgo notat." 

Which I translate literally : 

"Now, because not unfrequently anything is accustomed to be immersed 
and dipped into water that it may be washed, 2) [secondarily, i. e., by 
consequence] it denotes to wash, to bathe, to cleanse in water," [of course 
when it is done by immersion]. 

What then does Schleusner really say when permitted to 
tell the whole truth? He declares that the proper significa- 
tion of baptidzo is to immerse, to dip into, to sink in water, and 
that it corresponds to the Hebrew verb^ taval^ in 2 Kings^ v. 



348 The Great Carkollton Debate. 

14, (where IlsTaaman tavalized, dipped himself in Jordan seven 
times), and that it also corresponds to tava in Psalm Ixviii. 5, 
^' thou hast overwhelmed, (f. e., destroyed by an overwhelm- 
ing) cities," and in an unknown writer, a gloss on, Ps. ix. 6, 
" their memorial is j^erished,'' (by an overwhelming that covers 
it out of sight.) But "in this sense, it is never used in the 
'New Testament." In what sense? Unquestionably the latter, 
as tava is used in those two passages referred to. In what sense 
is tava used in those two passages? In the sense of such an 
immersion or overwhelming as results in causing the subject 
to perish. In the sense, then, of to destroy by immersing it 
is never used in the New Testament, but is often, not always 
so used by Greek writers. 

Here we have this distinguished biblical scholar and critic, 
(Dr. S.), positively and emphatically denying the assertion of 
Eld. Ditzler that " wherever baptidzo is used to put a living 
being clear under the water, it destroys." Is not thi?^ qnite 
different from what Eld. Ditzler makes Schleusnei' say, that 
ixiptidzo is never used in the New Testament in its proper 
sense — i.e., to immerse, to dip? With what language should 
this use of authorities be reprimanded? Must he not confess 
that either he did not understand this author, or that he inten- 
tionally suppressed an important part of his testimonj-? Then 
he emphatically affirms that S. declares that '^ haptidzo came to 
mean to wash, to cleanse," etc., in any way, "and in this sense 
it occurs in the ^ew Testament." It is painful to notice this, 
but fidelity to the truth compels me to say that these are Eld. 
Ditzlefs own words, which he puts into his transla.tion, and quotes 
them as S.^sl Schleusner does not say it, or anj^thing like it. 
See his text. 

My eye rests upon another misleading translation in his 
book of instruction, which, though he has not so used it in 
this debate, he may, and I notice it here ; and the more par- 
ticular am I in noticing these matters as I am contributing 
these efforts to make a book for the instruction of the people 
who cannot read Latin and Greek. In the seventh lino from 
the bottom, p. 488, he makes Schleusner say : 

' Ln nuni/ texts it is rantlsonti, sprinkle, for baptized." 



Mode of Baptism. 349 

Schluesner does not saj many. Here is what he says: 

''Sic legitur in Novo Testamento, Marc. vii. 4, kai apoagoras ean bapti- 
zoonti (in qiiibusdani codd, rantisoenti) ouk esthiousi. 

Which he renders: 

"And things, bought in market, unless they first immerse, (in certain 
texts it is sprinkle) they eat not." 

ISTow he makes Schleusner say in many texts is rantizonti in- 
stead of baptizonti, while he only says that in certain texts, they 
are feiv — two, perhaps, accredited ones, not the oldest — in which 
the copyists have substituted rantizonti^ to sprinkle, and why 
this change if baptizonti ever means to sprinkle, why the 
change ? Why those copyists corrected the text to teach their 
own view^s they believed, they sprinkled themselves, but they 
knew that there was no sprinkle in baptizonti, so they dropped 
it, and substituted rantizonti, and this is a strong proof that 
baptidzo only means to immerse. But why does Eld. Ditzler 
translate it many texts? Was it not to impress you, that with 
ancient writers baptidzo and raino are synonymous terms? He 
that is unfaithful in little things may be expected to be in 
wheightier matters. 

But how does he permit Schleusner to testify concerning 
baptisma, the only noun form of the verb used in the New 
Testament to denote the rite of baptism? We may expect to 
learn what Schleusner understood the meaning of this term 
is in the New Testament. 

Eld. D. entirely suppresses the definitions of baptisma, save 
the English word, " baptism," when Schleusner gives immersio 
immersion, as its first and only proper meaning ! and baptism 
not as the first or proper meaning at all ! but he gives those 
of baptismos at length, in order to making the impression that 
this is the more important word, and that it signifies a wash- 
ing or wetting by any mode . Now here is wdiat Schleusner 
says of baptisma, the noun used when the Christian rite is 
referred to : 

*^ Baptisma Nomen verbale a perfect© passivo bebaptisma verbi baptidzo. (1 
proprie : immersio^ intinctio in aquam, lotio. Hinc transfertur 2) ad ritum 
sacrum qui, kaia exomen, baptismus dicitur, quo baptizandi olim in aquam 
immergebantur, ut verse religioni divinse obstringerentur." 

Which I translate : 

' Baptisma is a verbal noun from the perfect passive of the verb baptidzo. 



350 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

1. Properly , immersion, a dipping into water, a bathing. Hence it is 
transferred 2. To the sacred rite which, pre-eminently, is called baptism, 
and in which formerly they were immersed in water, that they might be 
obligated to the true divine rehgion." 

x\ll can by this see that from the begiuning to the eud, 
Schleusner has been perverted by Elder Ditzler, to teach what 
he never said, and contrary to what he did say. I appeal to 
every scholar present, here are the books, and to every scholar 
on the continent, [passes them over to scholars, and to Dr. Tal- 
bert]. Such a course with an author is as unwarranted, as I 
believe, it is unprecedented in its grossness and flagrancy. 
If he has treated one lexicon thus, before our eyes, what have 
we not a right to expect of the many from which he has quoted 
here that we have not the opportunity to examine? I do 
therefore, as I am amply justified in doing, challenge every 
authority he quotes in this discussion, the full text of which 
he does not submit for examination. I cannot take what my 
' opponent avers an author says, nor his translations, unless he 
submits the text of the author. 

Is the Greek of the New Testament unlike Classic Greek. 

My opponent and a few other controversialists, claim, as a 

last argument, that the Greek of the New Testament is 

unlike classic Greek or any other Greek extant ! Well, what 

next? Such a statement argues a desperate cause. When T 

declared in my opening speech that there were some men who 

would do it, but if an angel from heaven should say so in your 

hearing, let him be rejected by you as a false teacher and-deceiver. 

I did not know that my opponent would take this position ! 

Grant it to be true, what follows ? why, as I then indicated that 
the New Testament was not a revalation to the Greek nations 

in apostolic times! It has ever been, and is, a sealed book to 

all the living nations of this day, and will ever remain so, 

until the Holy Spirit gives us an inspired lexicon by which to 

interpret it. If Eld. Ditzler be true, then there is nothing in 

the New Testament obligatory upon us. His position releases 

us. trom all obligations to read or to obey the New Testament. 

Surely that must be a desperate cause, that forces its advocates 

to take such a reckless position. 



Mode of Baptism. 351 

I will submit a few standard authorities upon this point, and 
if my opponent sees fit to close in with me on this issue, I am 
prepared for the contest, and will force him to deny the bind- 
ing authority of the I^ew Testament upon the world. 

1. I appeal to the vi. Rule of interpreting the ISTew Testament, 

which, at the outstart, my opponent accepted. It is of pointed 

force here. 

"VI. The principles of interpretation are common to sacred and ordinary 
writings, and the Scriptures are to be investigated by the same rules as 
other books," 

2. Moses Stuart, in his comment upon this, says with great 

force : 

"If the sacred Scriptures be a revelation, to men, then are they to be 
read and understood by men. If the same laws of language are not ob- 
served in this revelation as are common to nien, then they have no guide 
to the right understanding of the Scriptures, and our interpreter needs 
inspiration as much as the original writer. II follows, of course, that the 
sacred Scriptures would be no revelation in themselves, nor of any use, 
except to those who are inspired. But such a book the sacred Scriptures 
are not, and nothing is more evident than that when Oodhas spoken to 
rnen, he has spoken in the language of men, for he has spoken by men and 
for men.'''' 

Lexicons of New Testament Greek, 

3. Wahl's Ciavis of the IN'ew Testament (1829 Leipsic), which 

Eld. Ditzler endorses as " one of the most excellent we have," 

therefore I give all his meanings of baptidzo 'dn&'it^ derivitives, 

^^ ^ Baptidzo, f. iso. {a hapto, mergo ; ssepius mergo, in New Test:) 1. 

immergo (universe — Jos. Ant., ix, 10, 2 ; xv. 3,3. Polyb. i. 51,6,) {a) 

proprie et quidem deimmersione sacra.' {From hapto, to irmners". ; off en fo 
im?7ierse, in the New Testament.') First, to imm.erse^ {always in Jos. Ant, 9, 10, 
2; and 16, 3, 3. Polyb. i. 51, 6). (a) properly and truly concerning sacred im- 
mersion.^^ 

Can any testimony be more explicit and conclusive that 
baptidzo means " to immerse," and only " to immerse," in the 
'New Testament ? 

4. I call attention to Prof. Sophocles's Greek lexicon of 

classic and New Testament Greek, which covers a period of 

one hundred and ten years before Christ to the year 1100 

after. 

^^ Baptidzo J to dip, to immerse; sink, to be drowned (as the effect of 
sinking) ; to sink. Trop,, to afflict ; sanded in liquor ; to he. dkunk, tntox- 



352 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ICATED. 2. Mid., to perform ablution ; to bathe ; baptizesthai teis darkmsi; 
bathed in tears ; to plunge a knife. 4. Baptidzo, naergo, mergito, tingo, (or 
tinguo) ; to baptize — New Testament everywhere. There is no e^ddenee 
that Luke and Paul and the other writers of the New Testament put upon 
this verb meanings not recognized by the Greeks." 

5. Ed. Eobinson, in his lexicon of the N"ew Testament, gives 
no example oihaptidzo being used in a sense diffeTing from its 
classic meaning, " to dip," " to immerse." 

6. Analytical Greek Lexicon, Bagster & Sons, London. 

^^ Baptidzo^ fut. iso aor, 1, ebapiisa, properly to dip, to immerse: 2, to 
cleanse or purif}^ by washing ; to administer the rite of baptism, to bap- 
tize." 

'^ Baptisma^ atos^ to^ pr. immersion; baptism, ordinance of baptism. 

" Baptismos , pr. an act of dipping or immersing." 

7. Dr. Geo. Campbell, President of Marischal College, Pres- 
byterian, says : ► 

Dr. G. Campbell. — The word baptizein^ both in sacred authors and in 

classical, signifies to dip, to plunge, to immerse ; and was rendered by 

Tertulhan, the oldest of the La. Fathers, linger e^ the term used for dyeing 

cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to this 

meaning." (Note on Matt, iii, 11). " I should think the word '■immer- 
sion^^ (which though of Latin origin is an English noun,( a better EngUsh 

name than baptism were we now at liberty to make choice. — On the Gos- 
pels, vol. ii., p. 23. 

' I have heard a disj)utant, ... in defiance of etymology and use, 
maintain that the word, rendered in the New Testament baptize, means 
more properly to sprinkle than to plunge ; and in defiance of all antiquity, 
that the former method was the earliest, and for many centuries the most 
general practice in baptizing. One who argues in this manner never fails, 
with persons of knowledge, to betray the cause he would defend ; and 
though, Tvdth respect to the vulgar, bold assertions generally succeed as 
well as arguments, sometimes better, yet a candid mind will disdain to 
take the help of a falsehood even in support of the truth." — Led, on Pul. 
Eloq. ; page 480. 

8. W. Greenfield. — Baptidzo. To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink ; 
in New Testament to wash, perform ablution, cleanse ; to immerse, bap- 
tize, administer the rite of baptism. Met., to overwhelm one with anything, 
to bestow liberally, imbue largely. Pass., to be immersed in, or over- 
whelmed with miseries, oppressed with calamities ; whence Baptisma, 
Ijroperly what is immersed ; hence, immersion, baptism, ordinance of 
baptism; met., misery, calamity. Baptismos. Immersion, baptism; a 
washing, ablution." 

9. Schleusner's Lexicon of New Testament. — [I have before given his 
definition of baptidzo.'] *^ ^Baptisma. (1.) Proprie; immersio, intinctio in 
aquam^ lotio. Hinc transfertur (2) ad ritus sacrum, qui baptismus dicitur, 



Mode of Baptism. 353 

quo baptizandi olim in aquam immergebantur, ut verse religion! divinse 
obstringerentur.' Properly, immersion, dipping into water, washing. 
Hence it is (2) transferred to the sacred rite, which is called baptism, in 
which those formerly baptized were immersed in water, to obligate them 
to the true divine religion." 

10. Leigh, a witness my opponent attempts to wrest so as to 

testify in favor of sprinkling, concerning the meaning of the 

term in the "N^ew Testament, after giving "to dip into" or 

" plunge under" as the native and proper signification of bap- 

tidzo, says, under baptismos : 

" If we are willing to observe the import of the word, the term of bap- 
tism signifies immersion into water, or the act itself of immersing and 
washing off. Therefore, from the very name and etymology of the word, 
it ai^pears what would in the beginning be the custom of administering 
baptism, whilst we now have for baptism rather rhantism, that is, 
sprinkling." 

I say this is the witness Eld. Ditzler attempts to turn against 

my position, while every word he utters is against his own ! 

I appeal to this audience if my opponent is willing to observe 

the native import of the word in his endeavors to support 

rhantism for baptism. 

Stokius' Clavis of the New Testament (fourth edition, 
Leipsic,) after defining baptidzo, properly " to immerse," " to 
dip into water," says of 

BAPTISMA. 

'1.) Generatim et vi originis notat, immersionem vel intincti nem, 
2. j Speciatim, 2! ) pro/»rze notat immersionetn^ velintinctionemresin aquam^ ut 
abluatur, vel lavetur. Hinc transfertur ad designandum primum Novi 
Testament! kocramentum^ quod initationis vocant, nempe baptismum^ quo 
baptizandi ohm in aqam immergebeantur, utut hodienum aqua iis saltem 
adspergatur, ut a peccati sordibus abluantur, illius remissionem consequ- 
antur, & in foedus gratise recipiantur, tanquam hseredes vitse se terse." 

*'l. Generally, and by force of the original, it denotes immersion or 
dipping. 2. Specially, a. Properly, it denotes the immersion or dipping 
of a thing in water, that it may be cleansed or washed. Hence, it is trans- 
ferred to designate the first sacrament of the New Testament, which they 
call of initiation, namely baptism, in which those to be baptized were, 
formerly immersed into water ; though at this time the water is only 
sprinkled upon them, that they may be cleansed from the pollutions of 
sin, receive the remission of it, and be received into the covenant of grace 
as heirs of eternal life. ' ' 

Kow, you heard nr opponent, in his last speech, afiirm 
23 



354 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

that -'Stokius gives 'wash/ 'cleanse,' as the only I^ew Testament 
use of baptidzo as a rite 1" I am compelled to deny this frankly, 
and to sustain my denial I submit the text, which I have in 
my hand. 

BAPTIDZO. 

'' 1.) Generatim ac vi vocis mimc^ioms ae immersionis notionem obtinet. 
2.) Speciatim, a.) proprie est immergere a' intingere in aquam^ b.) Tropice. 1) per 
Meixilepnn est, lavare^ allure^ quia aliquid intingi ac inimergi solet in aquam 
ut lavatur, vel abluatiu^, equamquain, lotio vel ahlutio fieri queat & soleat. 
(Marc vii, 4; Luc, xi, 38.)" — Stokii "Clavis Linguse Sanctos Novi Testi- 
menti," p. 183. 

"Generally, and by force of the word, it obtains the notion of a dipping 
and immersion. 2. Specially a. Properly, it is to immerse and to dip mto 
water, b. Tropically 1. It is, by metonymy, to wash, to cleanse, because 
anything is accustomed to be dipped and immersed in water that it may 
be washed or cleansed ; although washing or cleansing may, and is accus- 
tomed to be done by sprinkling water also. — Mark vii, 4; Lul^e xi. 38." 

Mark particularly two things in this. 

1. Stokius says that, properly it means only to "immerse," 
"to dip into," but tropically — z. e., by a figure of speech^ where the 
effect is put for the cause, and only then, it is used to mean "to 
wash," "to cleanse," because the thing to be washed is accus- 
tomed to be dipped and immersed in water that it may be 
washed. 

2. Stokius gives it as his ojrlnion, that the cleansing or wash- 
ing he refers to in Alark vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, was by sprink- 
ling and not by immersion ; but the ripest modern scholarship, 
as do Jewish writers, who ought to know their own customs, 
decide against Stokius' opinion in this instance. The very 
statements of Mark clearly show that baptizonti m the fourth 
verse must mean more than nipsontai in the third, for they 
always washed their hands before eating, though they never 
washed them by sprinkling, but, coming from market, lest they 
may have contracted ceremonial defilement, they did more, im- 
mersed themselves according to the traditions of their elders. 

Dr. H. A. W. Meyer, in his Manual on the Gospels of Mark 

and Luke, says : 

' ' The expression in Mark vii. 4, is not to be understood of the washing 
of the hands (as interpreted by Lightfoot and Wetstein), but of the immei^' 
sing^ which the word always means in the classics and the New Testament 



Mode of Baptism. 355 

that is here, accordmg to the context, the takmg of a bath. So Luke xi. 
38. Having come from the market, where, among a crowd of men, they 
might have come in contact with unclean persons, they eat not without 
having first bathed themselves. The reioresentation proceeds after the 
m.anner of a climax ; before eating they always observe the washing of 
hands, but [employ] the hath when they come /rom the marl<et and wish to 
take food." — Chase, p. 95. 

I here close my argument proving that the Greek used by 
the New Testament writers was not different from that used 
by the Greeks of their age. The fact is, could my opponent 
prove that in classic Greek baptidzo was used generally in the 
sense of ''to wet,,' which is the most he has attempted to do, 
and concluding, as you can wet a thing by sprinkling, there- 
fore haptidzo may sometimes mean to sprinkle, yet these author- 
ities are sufficient to show that "to dip," "to immerse," is its 
invariable meaning in the ISTew Testament. All these author- 
ities also are Pedobaptists, and their testimony has the greater 
weight as they testify against their own practice. Mr. Green- 
field, who examined the ancient Peschito Syriac, the Arabic, 
the Coptic, the Gothic of Ulphilas, the Modern Versions, the 
German of Luther, the Dutch, Danish, and Sweedish, which, 
with many others, all agree after giving his testimony { in a 
controversy respecting the transferring or translating of the 
Greek word into heathen language) in favor of immersion as 
the primitive meaning of the Greek bapiidzo, said: "I wish it 
to be distinctly understood that I am neither a Baptist, nor 
the son of a Baptist; nor is it here my business to undertake 
a defense of their cause." Who can doubt that such is unex- 
ceptional testimony? 

Consider this array of lexical authority, and then decide if 
Moses Stuart, himself a Pedobaptist, did not state the truth 
when he said ; 

" 1 Bapto and haptidzo mean to dip, plunge, or immerge into 
anything liquid. All lexicographers, and critics of any note 
are agreed in this." — "Christian Baptism," by M. Stuart, p. 61. 

Replication. 

1. We learn from his last speech that though the proper 
rendering of the example — is to plunge, yet he may have done 
the plunging on dry land; horses frequently plunge on land I 



356 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

And mergo in Latin often occurs for plunge, as he showed Mr. 
Wilkes, and therefore when an act is expressed by mergo there 
need be no going under water — it of course can be performed 
on dry land, as sprinkling is ! I notice this as an illustration 
of his new philological method of getting to sprinkle as the 
historical primary of baptidzol Criticism is simply impossible. 

2. But he does make an attempt to refute my canon, i. e., 
that literally you cannot sprinkle or pour persons or indivisible 
objects. . I care not how often Eld. Ditzler refers to this. I 
want the minds of the masses called to and penetrated by the 
fact, for it itself settles the controversy on the action of bap- 
tism. Remember, it was Dr. Geo. Campbell, of England, a 
Presbyterian, who said the silly things Elder Ditzler ascribes 
to me, i. e., if bajytidzo meant to pour or to sprinkle, Christ 
woukl doubtless have said " baptize the water upon the peopUy 
This must be evident to every one. My opponent uses lan- 
guage so loosely that he makes one modal verb mean a dozen 
different and opposite acts which is opposed to the genius of 
language and to our Kules of Interpretation. ]N"o word can 
have diverse, much less radically different meanings in the 
same place. 

He certainly does not understand the difference between a 
metaphorical and a literal signification of a word, or he is 
determined that you shall not. 

Let me once and for all, put this matter forever to rest in 
the minds of every person, young and old in this audience. 

Every modal verbji c, a verb that expresses some one si^eGifie 
act as to sprinkle^ and noun formed from,it must have one specific 
meaning or it cannot be modal i. e., express mode. 

Now take the verbs he has mentioned, pour, sprinkle, moisten, 
wet, stain, color, wash, anoint, dip, or immerse. They do not 
mean one and the same thing, but evidently different things, 
and they cannot therefore be indicated, by the same word, and they 
never are. 

To pour denotes one kind of act, to sprinkle another and 
different act, therefore pouring is not sprinkling. If Christ 
commanded his apostles to pour, they disobeyed him if they 
sprinkled. You cannot pour by sprinkling, nor sprinkle b}' 



Mode of Baptism. 



357 



pouring. To pour an object is to diifuse it in a stream, it 
indicates a diffusion in a continuous stream so long as the 
act continues. To sprinkle is to scatter into drops, if a 
liquid, or fine particles if a divisible object as ashes, sand, etc. 
They are two different acts and one word cannot truly and 
literally denote them. It is senseless to talk about the different 
modes of modal verbs like these. You cannot sprinkle or 
pour in different ways. There is only one way to sprinkle 
and one way to pour. So of the verb to dip, it is a modal verb. 
It denotes but one act, that of putting one thing into another, 
nothing less. You cannot sprinkle or pour by dipping, and 
vice versa. Therefore these three acts cannot be expressed by 
one word. If baptidzo means one of them, it can properly and 
truly mean but one. Christ commanded his apostles to pour, 
or to sprinkle or to dip, and if one, then he forbade either of 
the other two acts. 

Take his other words, to wet, to stain — which are not mo- 
dal verbs, but of generic signification. You can correctly 
predicate mode of them, because you can wet or stain in va- 
rious ways, but any one ought to know that to wet does not 
mean to stain, therefore you cannot express them by one verb. 
All can see that to stain, does not mean to sprinkle, for one 
might stain a thing and not sprinkle it, or sprinkle, and stain 
nothing. Nor does moisten mean to wet or to dip, for it de- 
notes something less; nor does to dip mean to moisten, for it 
expresses more. We can here see how figurative meanings, 
which are always secondary, originate. Wetting and moisten- 
ing, and drenching, and soaking and dyeing, are sometimes 
the effect of dipping. When we speak of their effect, instead 
of the cause or act that produced it, we are said to 
speak figuratively, and the verb we use is one of the figurative 
uses of the verb to dip, and is classed in the lexicons as a 
secondary meaning. Origen spoke of Elijah's altar after hav- 
ing had twelve tubs of water poured upon it, so that the trench 
about it was filled with water — as immersed. But is immerse, 
a proper meaning of to pour? He used a figure called an 
Hyperbole. If he meant to denominate it a baptism — alluding 
to the Christian rite — then it was purely ideal and metaleptic. 



35^ ' The Great Carrollton Debate. 

You can understand the meanings given as the secondary 
signification of baptidzo in the lexicons; they are \hQ figurative 
uses they have met with — as when a writer speaking of a 
land scourged by war, says of it, " it w^as baptized in the blood 
of its sons — bathed in the tears of orphans and widows — im- 
mersed " in calamities ! " or persons " immersed in studies,^' " in 
iaxes^^ " in hooks^^^ " in cares/' " in wine," " in sleep." These 
mislead no one. But what would you think of a scholar who 
should trv to convince vou that these were indeed real mean- 
ings of the verb " to immerse?" That immersion therefore 
signified the dripping or pouring of blood, or the staining of 
the ground with it, was really to immerse it? To feel dis- 
tressed in mind, was to be immersed, that to study attentively 
was to be immersed, that to read a little here and there in a 
book, was to be immersed, that to be heavily taxed was to be 
immersed, to ask a boy questions faster than he can answer 
them, is to immerse him, to drink wine until intoxicated, is 
to be immersed — what would you think of such a trickster? 
You certainly would not call it scholarship. And yet this is 
the sort of lexicography he has treated you to throughout this 
discussion. Must we be inflicted with it to the end? 

For the reason I have given you. Dr. Chas. Anthon, Episco- 
palian, one of the first linguists America ever produced, says 
on defining baptidzo — ^'It means to dip, to immerse, audits 
secondary meaning, if it ever had any." Why does he say 
this? Because he never saw a secondary that was a real sig° 
nification,/or^^i^7'a^zve ones, are not real significations. 

We can now better understand the declaration of his favo- 
rite lexicographer, Leigh, when he says baptidzo new ev signifies 
to wash or to cleanse, or anything but its native meaning of 
to dip or to immerse — except by consequence — which means 
the figure of speech known as metonymy. 

And here, I may as well explain what we Baptists mean 
when we say, with C. Anthon and Moses Stuart, as we have a 
perfect right to say, that all lexicographers give to dip or im- 
merse, as the onh^ true and real meaning of baptidzo. We 
mean they all unite in giving this as its primary, which is the 
onlv real and true meaning. It is for this rea^son that I read 



Mode of Baptism. ** 359 

only the primary meanings the lexicons give to baptidzo, while 
he, as you all know, gave only figurative ones as those he relied upon 
to get sprinkle as a meaning of baptidzo/ Nothing can be more 
foreign to the truth, than that bapio or baptidzo ever did, pri- 
marily or secondary, mean to sprinlde or to pour, and you 
have had only his unqualified assertions for it, as yet. But 
his unsupported assertions establish nothing, except his utter 
lack of proot^ — for if he had proofs, he certainly would pre- 
sent them, rather than mere assertions. He challenges me to 
gainsay some assertions which he calls facts. I do gainsay 
them, by positively and emphatically denying them to he facts. 

After three days — for I called his attention to it in my first 
argument on the first day of the debate — he makes the ap- 
pearance of a reply to my canon, which I have urged in almost 
every speech for four days — i. e. that Christ commanded per- 
sons, and not ivater, to be baptized, and therefore baptidzo con- 
not mean to sprinkle or pour. I may have presented the 
matter feebly — the day is coming when a thousand lips and 
pens will accept the argument and present it with toifold 
power — still the stern grammatical fact is there, that when per- 
sons or indivisible things are the objects of the verbs to pour or 
to sprinkle theymusttake the preposition in oi' upon, expressed 
or in composition. He has just asserted again, and I propose 
to discuss this point as long as he makes such assertions — that 

" the same words that mean to pour, to sprmkle, mean also, in many 
cases, to moisten, to wet, others to sprinkle, then stain, color, others to 
pour, then to anoint, wash, cleanse — the vast majority of them coming 
also to mean dip, whelm, immerse, submerge." 

This is simply impossible, irrational and absurd. There is 

not a verb in any language that a son of Adam ever spoke, 

that meant or means all these radically diflferent significations. 

I fully met this position at the commencement of this address, 

but he now says nothing is more common in Greek usage 

than for the verbs to pour, to sprinkle, to take indivisible 

nouns, as direct objects. 

"In Greek nothing is more common than to say sprinkle a man — any 

one — rninein Una — rainein an-'hropon — miyieln seauton — sprinkle oneself, etc.'' 

If Ekh r Ditzler will consult the best Greek lexicons of classic 
writers, he will find that they tell him that raino and theo cheo 



^6o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

are used " strictly with liquids or of divisible objects and if used 
with solids, water, blood, dust, as a direct object etc., etc., oi 
is understood if not expressed. We can say sprinkle a man 
with water, but it is a tigure, for the water and not the man is 
sprinkled. Paul said that Moses sprinkled the book, and the 
people, tabernacle and vessels, etc., but it was by the figure 
called metonymy when rhetorically one thing is put for 
another; the people for the blood that was sprinkled upon 
them. So by this figure Jerusalem and all Judea went out to 
John's baptism, the city and the land put for the people. 

So David said, " sprinkle me with hyssop," and this is by 
the same figure — the thing that contains for that which is con- 
tained-the hyssop, for the blood and water of purification it 
contained, which was the real object sprinkled — not David, 
nor the hyssop branch. 

Why will not Elder Ditzler explain this language as figura- 
tive and not mislead the people. 

But in enacting law, all figures must be eschewed, and all 
terms used in their primary, or most literal and usual signi- 
fications. 

As this is as important a matter as can be raised under the 
question, let us examine every case in the word of God where 
sprinkle is used, and see if it is used of indivisible objects with 
or without a preposition as a rule. 

1. The first case is Exodus ix, 8, " let Moses sprinkle ashes'' 
no preposition before ashes in Hebrew or Greek text, nor in 
Syriac or Latin versions — ashes can be scattered. 

2. Lev., xiv, 7, sprinkle on him to be cleansed — here we find 
aZ, on, in Hebrew and Syraic, pen in Greek, hwper in Latin. 

3. Lev., xiv, 51, " He shall sprinkle the house seven times," 
here our version uses a figure, but the Hebrew and Syriac have 
their prepositions, al on, also Greek and Latin versions. 

4. Lev., xvi, 14. " He shall sprinkle on the mercy seat," all 
in Hebrew and Syriac, etc. 

5. Lev., xvi, 15, 5. The same. 

6. Num., viii, 7, " Sprinkle the water," al, upon them. 



Mode of Baptism. 



301 



10. Num., xix, 18. "And the clean person shall sprinkle al 
upon the unclean." 

11. The eleventh is found in the 20th, verse of the same 
chapter— "the water of separation hath not been sprinkled, al 
upon him." 

12. The twelfth in course is in Isaiah lii, 15, "so shall he — 
yazzah — King James' translation renders it sprinkle, but the 
correct rendering is doubtless to be found in the Greek ver- 
sion made by seventy learned Jews, who translate it, ^Hhau- 
madzo^' — astonish, met. as if sprinkle is the verb — water of 
purification is the element understood. 

13. The next is found in Ezekiel, xxxvi, 25, " I will sprinkle 
clean water al upon you." 

Where is my learned friend's " double accusative," in all 
these instances? 

Now if he will open his Syriac version of the Old Testament, 
he will likewise find al, on, upon, in connection with th*3 verb 
to sprinkle in all these instances ! If he will deign to refer to the 
Greek of the septuagint, he will find peri, upon, and the Latin 
version has huper, and the English version has on or upon in every 
one of these instances. The only exception to the above, is in 
Heb., ix, 19 — when in Greek it is elliptically expressed, but 
my friend's " grand old Syriac" which he declares equal or 
superior to the Greek text, in this instance has al upon — 
besprinkled or "sprinkled upon," etc. 

Touching upon the verb to pour, he cannot find an instance 
in the word of God where persons or living beings were com- 
manded to be poured, nor where they were commanded to 
be sprinkled, but always the liquid, ashes or sand, to be sprinkled 
or poured upon them. To ridicule is the easiest way to 
dispose of an argument — will he charge the Holy Spirit with 
folly? — {Time out). 



362 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S FIFTEENTH REPLY. 

GrENTLEMEN MoDERATOES : — x\n extraordinary speech, it is to 
which you have just listened. He has more than once invited 
sharp criticism, and he will only regret his last effort once^ that 
will be while he lives. He has drawn the fire, he must endure 
the flame. For a man to come here with nothing scarcely 
but compilations and compendiums, blundering through 
Glossaries for lexicons, relying on good, bad and indifferent, 
misunderstanding them, mangling every lexicon he attempted 
to translate, disregarding punctuation, and dealing in the most 
reckless assertions we ever heard from a religious man. To 
attack our quotations is cool indeed. I did not expect to see 
him vv^ince, squirm and writhe so fearfully under the little 
touch-up I gave him about reading his lexicons from second- 
hand authorities, and making great lexicographers blunder 
also by making ba;ptidzo mean to dye. So he avenges himself 
by daring and furious assaults. He runs after the wrong man. 
Dr. Graves did say Gazes wrote on modern Greek. He did not 
say a word about commentary^ or that they were ^' commen- 
tators rather than lexicographers" — Gazes and Kouma, 
though he now puts it in the record thus. And I will now 
convict him of self-stultification by his last speech — an error he 
would have escaped had he heeded our Louisville Debate or 
Conant's letter. 

In his thirteeeth speech Dr. Graves quotes Suidas, the 
native Greek of the tenth century, thus, as defining baptidzo, 
" to immerse, to immerge, to dip, to dip in." 'Now read his 
fifteenth speech, and he quotes Conant, their great Baptist of 
New York who tells him truly, '' Suidas has only baptidzo. 
He gives no definition of the word ! ! ! " ISTow where did 
these immersionists get all their immerse, dip, dip into, from? 
They made it. Suidas defines bapto by only one word — jplunOy 
to wash, and it was out of that they carried all of these defini- 
tions, or rather out of their own brains. Some of our writers 
have copied the same out of their writers. 



Mode of Baptism. 363 

Dr. Graves quotes Scapula as defining haptidzo — item tingo — 
which he renders "immerse." He can't find a lexicon on 
earth that defines baptidzo by tingo. They often define bapto hy 
it, for both often mean to stain, color, dye; whereas baptidzo 
never does, and tingo is too ambiguous therefore to be used in 
defining baptidzo. E'ext he renders it " immerse." He can't 
find a lexicon on this continent or imported that gives im- 
merse as a first, second or third meaning of tingo, and not over 
one in five that renders it dip, either. A number gives 
sprinkle or or besprinkle, while all the most critical give it 
as the equivalent of '' hugraino^' — sprinkle with water. 

He quotes Tromonius for a lexicographer. I have the work 
he cites, and the little glossary is not by him, and is written 
solely to define the Hexapla of Origen, a work that has baptidzc 
only about twice in it, and used not in a religious sense, once 
for sink, once for " overwhelm " — so Conant and Baptists gen- 
erally render it there. 

He quotes Leigh as saying '^the native and proper significa- 
tion of it {baptidzo) is to dip into water." — Speech loth. He 
says not a word of it. He is in my hand here. That is a 
quotation he copies from an immersionist. Leigh says just 
the reverse. 

In his fifteenth speech Dr. Graves cites Leigh under bap- 
tismos, hoping to thrive better. But alas ! it is the same thing. 
Leigh is there quoting Zipperus, an immersionist. Leigh then 
cites to offset him, Danaeus, that it occurs in the JSTew Testa- 
ment for washing, purification, and Becann, that it is from 
baptein, "to moisten," to wet {madefacere), to wash, lavare. 

Leigh's definition is — "Primarily, it may signify by washing 
of any kind or immersion, which may be in water vessels in 
which we immerse linen. Yet largely and more extendedly also 
it is taken for any kind of washing whatever, purification or 
cleansing, even of that in which there is no kind of immer- 
sion." — Matt, iii, 11.* That is Leigh. Hence he endorses aS' 

"'■• Leigh's Critica Sacra, 1706. 

Priniario significet istiusmodi lotionem sen imraersionem, quae in vasis 
aquariis sit, quibus lintea imniergimus; tamen largius et latius etiam 
suniitur pro quocunque genere ablutionis, prolutionis seu minidationis, 
etiam illius, cui nulla immersionis species adest. Matt, iii 11 ; xx, 22; 
Mar. c. vii, 4; x, 38 Luc, iii, 16, etc. 



3^4 



The Great Carrollton Debate. 



a true meaning " adsjpergere,'' sprinkle where it is baptism, 
and no kind of immersion present. 

But this will do as a sample of how Dr. Graves and his co- 
laborers quote authorities, till we look into his charges against 
us, then we will see more of the same kind of quotation and 
translation. . " 

Dr. (iraves now takes up Schleusner, not as I read him in this 
debate nor as I read him at Louisville, but as reported in that 
debate, and charges that "'intentionally or through Ignorance," 
^'' h J su^-pvessiu g Sin important sentence, made Schleusner say 
what he does not say." Go slow, Doctor. I know defeat is 
hard to bear and hurts dreadfully. 

Let us place my Louisville quotation and the whole text of 
Schleusner up to that point, side by side, give a perfectly 
literal rendering of him, and see if it changes his meaning in 
the least. 



SCHLEUSNER IN FULL SO FAR AS 
THAT PAJRT GOES. 



schleusner as in louis\t[lle de- 
bate. 



Baptidzo properly : to immerse or ' ' Properly, to im.merse or dip, to 
dip, to pkmge into water, from &(7^z?o, I plunge into water, from hapto. . . 
and answers to [i. e., translates] the But in this sense it never occurs in 
Hebrew tabhal^ II Kings v, 14, in the 'the New Testament, Imt it does oc- 
Alexandrian Version and to tahha\QMT very frequently in the Greek 



[classic] writers, for example, in 
Diodorus Siculus, of the overflow- 
ing of the Nile," etc. 



in the version of Symmachus, Psalms 
Ixviii, 5, AND (et) in one uncertain 
[as to its translation?] Psalms ix, 6. 
But in this sense it never ocm-s in the 
New Testament, but very frequently 
[it so occurs] in the Greek writers ; 
see for example, Diodorus, Siculus, 
of the overflowmg of the Nile. 

Now, because not unfrequently anything is accustomed to be 

immersed or dipped into ivater that it may be cleansed, hence, 

2, it means to cleanse, to wash, to purify with' water. Thus 

it occurs in the JSTew Testament, Mark vii, 4. And coming 

from the market except they baptize themselves (in certain 

copies it reads sprinkle themselves), etc. . . . metaphorically, 

as the Latin, to imbue, to administer and give to largely and 

copiously, to pour forth abundantly." * 

^- Schleusner, Novum Lex. New Test. Glasguae, 1824 3 vols. Baptidzo 
1. proprie: immergo ac intingo, in aquam mergo, a baptoo et respondet 
Hebraico abal 2 Reg. v, 14, in Vers. Alex, et tab ha, apud Symmachum 
Psalm Ixviii, 5. et apud i?icertum, Ps. ix, 6. In hac autem signiiicatione 



Mode of Baptism. 365 

What Schleusiier, Wahl, etc., mean by give to, administer 
to or imbue largely, is told by "Wahl under ekcheo, to pour out, 
'^effundo,^' i. e., do give largely {largiter do, largiter imbruo, etc.,) 
to imbue largely. That is, it is to (ekcheo) pour out upon 
them whatever was described — the Spirit — baptize them. 

1. We never changed the meaning of Schleusner in one ioto. 
We never left out a "sentence," but two Hebrew words and 
the texts referred to — which not a word was defined only 
from — "and answers to the Hebrew tabhal" to "Psalms 1. and 
16. Now, how does that affect the sense ? 

2. Elder Wilkes looked on it as I did as to that point, and 
knew it did not afiect the meaning. 

3. Dr. Graves now wilfully suppresses a part, leaves out an 
important word, that connects the words together — et, et,'^and 
to tabha." 

4. Now see how Dr. Graves quotes Schleusner on two other 
occasions. De. Graves' quotation of Schleusner, July 4th, 
1868, ''The baptist," where 15 lexicons are cited. 

''Baptldzo, 1. Immerse, dip, plunge in water. 2. Wash 
cleanse, bathe in water." Now, where are the above Hebrew 
words, texts and all ? He leaves all out. But in the same arti- 
cle he says ; "Not one of these Pedobaptist authors or Lexi- 
cographers gives sprinkle or pour as a difinition of baptidzo." 

Yet Schleusner gives " pour forth'' — profundo. Now let us 
see how Dr. Graves quotes him in his 13th speech, where he 
cites lexicons : 

Schleusner. — '■^Baptidzo. 1. Proprie: immergo^ acintingo^ in aquam mergo^ 
a BAPTO, et respondet Hehraico tahal^ 2 Kings, V. 14. (Properly to immerge 
and dip in, to immerse into water ^ from hapto ; and it answers to the Hebrew 
tahal, 2K. V. 14)" * « * 

Here Dr. Graves leaves out nearly every word I left out, then 

numqiiam in N. T. sed eo frequentives in scriptt. Gr. legitiir, v. c. Diod. 
Sic. 1, c. 36 de Nilo exundante, Strabo, Polyb., etc. Jam, quia baud raro 
aliquid immergi ac intingo in aquam solet, ut lavetur, hinc 2. ahluo^ lavn 
aqua purgo notat. Sic legitur in N. T. Marc, vii, 4, kai apo agoras eau me 
hnptisoontai) in quibusdam codd. Rhantisoontai) ouk esthiousi et res, in foro 
eoemtas, nisi prius aqua ablutse et purgatse fuerint, non ediint. Luk. xi, 
88. . ebaptisthee . . lavasse. Baptizesthai non solum lavare, sed etiam se 
/auare significare, multis locis probare potest. 3. Hinc transferetur ad 
hnrthmi'ritvm, Rolemnen^ eXe. 4. Mctaphorice; ut Lat. imbao, large et copiose 
do^ a'qiie sxpp.ili'o 'argi'C- 2J/'oj'undo. 



T,66 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

leaves out a]l the defiiiitioii. Sclilensner chives every vrorcl oF 
which I quoted in the Louisville debate. But that is not all. 
He makes Schleusner say baptidzo is used in the IN'ew Testa- 
ment sense as tabJial is in 2 Kings, v. 14, where Haaman ^^bajy- 
tized himself — "dipped himself" in our version. Is baptidzo 
so used in the New Testament? Are we to "dip ourselves?" 
5. He makes Schleusner say baptidzo is used in classic 
Greek in the sense of tabha,hut never so in the New Testament. 
Well then he concedes two damaging things. 

1. That baptidzo is never used in the New Testament in the 
sense it is "in Greek writers." 

2. That as tabha in those texts, and always in the Bible, 
means "to immerse" and has no other meaning, then Schleus- 
ner says baptidzo never occurs in the sense of immerse in the 
Bible. Then 

3. He makes Schleusner say tabha applies to inundations, 
etc. ! Yea, Dr. Graves says tabha is used in the sense of "im- 
mersion or overwhelming.^^ Tabha never meant overwhehu in 
any book in all the world* No authority on earth ever so ren- 
dered it. But it "results in causing the subject to perish," he 
tells us. Has he not adduced a number of texts where baptidzo 
occurs to prove that the parties were immersed and perished ? 

And then does he not in this same loth speech try to prove that 
classic use is the same as New Testament use ? What does he 
mean ? Has he been under Ewing ? We will test him on 
this matter soon. 

It has been urged that "Aac" in the sentence "Zti hac sig- 
nificatione^' refers to the latter tabha, in contrast with the former 
tabhal, as if Schleusner said in this sense — of tabha — it never 
occurs in the New Testament, but very frequently does in 
Greek writers, etc. But Schleusner is not referring to the 
Hebrew words at all, but to his definition, "immergo ac intin- 
go," etc., and the "Aac" regards them as a unit}^, one, all as ot 
the same force. Indeed, in Latin, were not this the case even, 
as unquestionably it is, we often have such Latin in patristic 
use as this, sive hac sive ilia, eitheir this or that, the hac refer- 
ring to the first, and so is against the Doctor. But hac implies 
unity of meaning; in the modal sense of immerse, dip, plunge, 



Mode of Baptism. 367 

it is not used in the ITew Testament, but in sense of wash, 
cleanse, abluo, lavo, in any way whatever. 

Dr. Wilkes never took the schute Dr. Graves has but saw 
into Schleusner's meaning far better. His meaning is that 
baptidzo is not used modally in the ISTew Testament, but as a 
rite, symbolic in its nature, and embraces sprinkling, pouring, 
(lipping. That is his meaning, and clearly so; for he ex- 
pressly 1st says "in this sense" — that is, of "dip, immerse, 
plunge," "it NEVER occurs in the !N'ew Testament." Because 
it came, as he held to mean "to wash, cleanse," he says, "Thus 
it occurs in the !N"ew Testament," and cites Mark vii. 4 as a 
case, and that "in certain copies it is sprinkled' That shows 
what he held. 

2 He gives ^^pour forth'' as a I^ew Testament use. Dr. Graves 
discovers that haptisma is more important than haptidzo. In- 
deed ! It does not occur but once in the l^ew Testament for 
Christian baptism. Yet is more important than the word used 
by Christ in the commission ! 1 See this shows the headless 
onset of a heated controversialist. 

He says I suppose Schleusner's immersion under baptisma. 
Did I quote or profess to quote him on baptisma ? Dr. Wilkes 
and I contended over Bible use, and I, as in this debate, urged 
that it is used in the I^ew Testament in the sense of baptism 
a word of ordinance, and quoted Schleusner on that, and lie 
•never adduces it as a case of suppression, when I had freely 
agreed that immerse was one of its meanings. But Dr. Graves 
says I suppressed his meaning. He ought to know'it is not so. 
But let us see Dr. Graves' capacity a little further. In his pa- 
per, July 4th, 1868, he quotes Suicer — "immerse, wash" — Sui- 
cer has baptize — "by immersion or sprinkling." 

Dr. Graves quotes Passow — "immerse often, submerge ; 
hence, 1. To moisten, to wet. 2. Draw water. 3. Baptize, 
wash." After all these, he says, ''not one of the Pedobaptist 
authors and Lexicographers gives sprinkle or pour as a defini- 
tion of baptidzo ! !" Yet Passow gives "sprinkle," ^'generally to 
sprinkle upon, to pour upon." ^Tow, he renders exactly the 
same German words f)f the abov^e, "immerse after, submerse" 
bv "to (lip in. oi" under, ofton and roDcntedlw" And that\^ 



368 



The Great Carrolltox Debate. 



his primary meaning of baptidzo, and classic and x^ew Testa- 
ment meanings are the same ! ! He can change his own 
translations I He is like Liddell and Scott — change every year. 
On Stokius, Dr. Graves : 

1. He suppresses several very important sentences : (1.) To 
destroy his meaning. (2.) To weaken the use we make of him. 

Stokius as he is. 



Stoktus is quoted by Dr. Graves, 
Fifteenth speech. 

"Generally, and by force of the word, 
it obtains the notion of a dipping and 
immersion. 2. Specially, a. |Proper- 
ly, it is to immerse and to dip into 
water, b. Tropically. 1. It is, by 
metonymy , to wash, to clean se, because 
anything is accustomed to be dipped 
and immersed in water that it may 
be washed or cleansed; although 
wj^hing or cleasing may, and is ac- 
customed to be done by sprinkUng 
water also. (Mark vii. 4 ; Luke xi. 
38.") 



"1. Generally, and by the force of 
the word, it obtains the sense of im- 
mersing or dipping. Specially (a) 
properly it is to dip or immerse in 
water. 3 . ( b) Tropicallj'' by a metal- 
epsisitisto washjto cleanse, because 
a thing is usually dipped or immersed 
in water that it may be washed or 
cleansed, although also ey sprink- 
ling the water the washing or cleans- 
ing can be, and generally is, ac- 
complished^ Mark vii. 4 ; Luke ix. 38. 
Hence, it is trasferred to the sacra- 
ment of baptism. 3. Metaphorical- 
ly, (a) it designates the pouring out 
of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles 
and other believers on account of 
the abundance of the gifts of the Ho- 
ly Spu'it since anciently the water mas 
POURED cnpioudy upon those baptiz- 
ed, or they were siuik deep in the wa- 
ter," etc. baptumos^ lotio, ablutio, 
baptismus — baptismos (noun), wash- 
ing, cleansing, baptism." 

i^ow, Stokius explains himself. He leaves no obscurity. By 
a inetalepsis it came to mean to VMsh. So Witsius and Stuart 
and Beza argued exactly, as we quoted. Yet the two first 
lield that 3000 on Pentecost, the 5000, Lydia, etc., were all bap- 
tized by sprinkling. Was it metaphorical ? Has Dr. Grat^es 
to be told that they all held that metaphorical meanings be- 
came the sta^stdard meanings? Did not Beza say the water 
was "poured by John*' in baptizing ? Was that metaphorical ? 
Yet he reasoned as Stuart does, and Schleusner : Hence, 
Stokius says, "the washing or cleansing could be, and gener- 
ally was accomplished by sprinkling the water, Mark vii. 4; 
Luke xi. 38. Hence, transferred to the sacrament of baptism." 
Now, when he tells us it was b}^ sprinkling, and hence (hinc) 
transferred to the sacrament of baptism," and follows it up as 
iocs, not once srivins: dip or :ir.:ners;' a^ a Bible u.sc, my 



giving 



Mode of Baptism. 369 

words stand approved. Dr. Graves tells us Schleusner gives it 
as '^his opinion'' as above. What is any man's definition but 
his view or opinion ? He says not a word about opinion. But 
his definitions were all his opinions just as all other men's def- 
initions are their opinions. Such worming about is unworthy 
of the name of decent puerihty or clever nonsense. 

Dr. Graves seeks then to destroy Schleusner's testimony 
by making him contradict himself. But the comment Dr. 
Graves makes is on a word never found in any Greek work be- 
fore the New Testament was written, and hence the difference 
— the very m.arked difference he makes in defining the two and 
their use. Under the word Dr. Graves cites, his words are — 
"baptism, which they call [the sacrament] of^ initiation \n which 
those baptized were anciently immersed in water, as now-a- 
days the water is merely sprinkled on them." xTotice now — 

1. No scripture — no text is cited. It is not Bible usage he 
speaks of, but later. Hence, 

2. It \Q patristic use, the usage of the fathers Stokius is here 
discussing. Hence, he introduces it by saying 'Hhey call it 
[the sacrament] of initiation'' — who thus immersed. But where 
m the ]^ew Testament, is baptism called 'initiation," "first sac- 
rsiment"primum sacramentum" ? It is true that during the dark 
ages when they {vocant) call it these things, they did immerse 
mainly. 

Dr. Graves quotes Wahl thus : 

^^Baptidzo, f. ISO. {abapto, mergo] ssepius mergo, in New Test.): 1. im- 
mergo (universe — Jos. Ant. ix, 10, 2; xv, 3, 3. Polyb. i, 51, 6) a (proprie 
et quidem de immersione sacra. ) (From bapto^ to immerse ; often to immerse 
in the New Testament) . First, to immerse^ [always in Joe. Ant. 9, 10, 2; and 
15^ 3 3. Polyb i, 51, 6). (a) 'properly and truly concerning sacred immer- 
sion.''^ 

1. If you will notice the Latin in parenthesis, and his render- 
ing, you will have proof that Dr. Graves does not so punctuate 
it as to correctly interpret Wahl. 

2. Wahl changed his definition during that same year, and 
in one edition I have, it is: 1, "to wash, besprinkle — law — 
and 2, immerse." 

In a third edition, 1831, he changes again, and has immerse, 

overwhelm, imbue — and by imbue he shows under ekcheo, 
24 



370 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

"pour out" means it is by pouring, to sprinkle {jperfxindo) 
nipto^ wash the hands, lavo, wash, besprinkle. Lavo wherever 
modal, is sprinkle, besprinkle, and every Latin lexicon I ever 
saw gives besprinkle as a meaning. 

Dr. Graves leaves out the definition of Swarzius, in his 
Ingham, *'to sprinkle, to besprinkle, to pour upon," who 
gives them as literal meanings, as well as Passow, Rost & Palm. 
He told us he would mainly give the first recorded definitions, 
it is true; but when his own Ingham and Booth both tell him 
this great and voluminous lexicon — a great German standard, 
gives these, and it is translated by immersionists as above, 
how dare he say I gave no lexicon with sprinkle, etc., as 
literal meanings? 

Can you fail to see the partisan " controversialist" in all this? 
Stephanus is not a German lexicographer, as he said. He 
was born in Paris, descended of a Provencal family, was born 
about 1502. Here then we have five great German lexicogra- 
phers on classic Greek — Swarzius, Schneider, Passow, Palm, 
Rost — all giving "sprinkle," "pour upon," as literal niQuumg^^ 
the three last telling us that is the general meaning. 

Wahl, New Testament lexicon, gives sprinkle as a literal 
meaning. But why multiply such testimonies? They appeal 
from thelexicons, we followed, now they fly back to them, de- 
serting the "ultimate authorities," just as they desert versions 
now and fly back to James, whoiTi twenty-flve to thirty years 
ago they traduced and anathematized. Now its greatest 
blunders are their delight. 

Dr. Graves says Sophocles is a " lexicon of standard author- 
ity by Americans and Germans." I squarely deny it and chal- 
lenge him to the proof. He can't find one single commentator, 
critic or scholar in Germany who ever quoted him. Nor 
have I ever seen him quoted in America, save by the 
" disciples," and I quoted him only because they did. Dr. 
Graves misquotes him also. Sophocles defines baptidzo by 
bathe, ablution, and cites a Greek text where it is used for 
" baptize with tears." Where is the "dip" or "immerse" 
here? 



Mode of Baptism. 371 

Dr. Graves dares to say that he endorses the statements his 
partisans heaped on my sermons while in Texas ! I tell him 
I do not endorse all the statements of our papers about 
him. 

He liOw urges that to deny that I^ew Testament Greek is 
unlike classic Greek "is a last argument." Of course it is in 
the use of baptidzo that this is brought up. Then he puts to 
shame all candor by asserting that his "opponent and a few 
other controversialists " claim this ! ! He knows there is not 

A SCHOLAR IN EuROPE OR AMERICA BUT THAT SO HOLDS. He 

knows that Home, Fairbairn, Geo. Campbellj his main ally, 
Stuart, Winer, Ernesti, Walton, 8. Davidson, Ed. Robinson — 
all so hold. 

He knows that any scholar would stultify himself to deny it. 

Geo. Campbell tells us the difference between 'New Testa- 
ment Greek and classic Greek is so great that those who used 
the latter would not know what was meant by some of the 
words in Greek in the New Testament. 

So far as Greek is concerned, classic Greek suits my pur- 
poses far better than any other, as has been seen. But I will 
present some of the facts, not one of which he can deny, that 
you may see the extreme folly of his boasting on that subject, 
and know the whole truth. 

1. In classic (heathen) Greek, baptidzo is never applied to 
any religious or heathen ordinances. 

2. Nowhere is it, or are names derived from it, applied to 
religious washings, purifications, or '' initiations," etc. 

3. Nowhere does the verb baptidzo or any name derived 
from the verb apply to any kind of washing. 

4. In the Bible and Apochrypha its names are always ap- 
plied to religious washings. 

5. In classic Greek baptidzo always leaves the object of its 
action under the element to the extent it puts it there, only 
expresses the extent to which it penetrates. 

6. In the new Testament it never has such force or use. 

7. In classic Greek it often means to make drunk, intoxi- 
cate, drown, overwhelm, submerge, leaving its object in that 



372 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

condition; burden or overwhelm with debts, questions, misfor- 
tunes. All admit this. Conant,Campbell and all other writers 
of note give many such instances. 

8. In the 'New Testament it never has such meaning. 

9. As a religious word immerse cannot represent baptidzo. 
The English of immerse we have seen is to sink in. This is 
admitted. How can sink or sink in represent baptism. An 
object may sink in mud, in filth, in any penetrable element — 
is it baptized ? 

10. As a classie word dip or baptize cannot represent baptidzo, 
for the latter means most generally in classic Greek to asperse, 
abuse, whelm, overwhelm, intoxicate, soak, make drunk, over- 
whelm with debts, taxes, questions, drown. Dip does not 
represent any of these. 

11. While an object is immersed it is not baptized. It re- 
quires emersion, rising out of the element to make it baptism. 
Immersion is only half of the action of the ordinance. Half of 
a thing cannot be equivalent to the whole of it, hence immer- 
sion is not baptism. 

That you may see the point between dip and baptism — im- 
merse and baptism, let us illustrate. Were you to envelop a 
man in India rubber clothes, so that no water could penetrate, 
and dip him clear under, would he be baptized in the 'New ^ 
Testament sense? No. Were you to sink him twenty feet 
deep, have it so he could breathe and remain an hour, he is 
immersed, most assuredly, ^ot a drop of water though 
touches him. Is he baptized? No I The one was dipped, the 
other immersed — neither was baptized. There was your pre- 
tended burial, but no baptism. Why? " I baptize you with 
WATER." He uses immersed in water, not baptized ivith it. 
This should show every one that mode is not the essential, and 
that dip, immerse as such, is not baptism. 

He says he is in company with Webster, and Geo. Camp- 
bell, etc., in his wild and puerile theory that to sprinkle 
necessarily implies to scatter in drops. He never saw such a 
canon in any writer of standing among scholars, and he never 
will. If our exposure is unsound why does he not meet it? 
Take one more example. 



Mode of Baptism. 373 

All his standard Latin lexicons will tell liim that tlngo is 
equivalent to the Greek hugraino. This is compounded of 
hudor water, and rai7io to sprinkle. It is used by Homer and 
on down — takes the direct accusative, and never, that I saw, an 
intervening preposition. It not only means to sprinkle any 
one with water, but to wash, to bathe, take a bath — always 
the accusative. What can he oppose to all these multiplied 
facts ? E'othing but a bold and reckless body of assertions. 
And with little grace does it come from one whose extracts 
are nearly all second-hand; nearly all garbled; one wdio has 
lived in the fiercest personal controversy, to sneer so often at 
his own profession, when it falls so harmlessly at our feet. 
He quotes Conant's shameless letter w^here he suppresses the 
(brecho) to shed forth, sprinkle, and the (epi chuno) pour upon, 
etc., of Gazes^ and the "besprinkle" of Kouma! 

Then he says, "mark one thing, he has not yet produced a 
standard lexicon that gives Ho sprinkle,' or 'to pour' as the lit- 
eral, current definition of bapto or baptidzo 1 1 When a man is 
so full of jokes it is difficult to understand him in all his moods. 
The great Schneider gives brecho sprinkle, shed forth, as the 
general equivalent of baptidzo. Kouma and Gazes, native born 
profound Greek scholars, the latter spent much time in the 
great universities of Germany. It is the basis of Schneider's 
large lexicon. Rost and Palm give "sprinkle," "sprinkle up- 
on, pour upon," and state that to be its general meaning. To 
evade its force. Dr. Graves perverts the German begiessen. 
Rebbi Wisa, an enthusiastic immersionist is too candid a 
scholar to risk his reputation in such evasions, and translates 
it "sprinkle." S. Davidson, whose superior does not live, as a 
eritic, translates it sprinkle. Rost and Palm themsevles use it 
iov sprinkle, Thieme's German — English Worterbuch (Diction- 
ary) translates it "to water, to sprinkle." But what cares Dr« 
Graves for all that? when Dr. Graves says : "The reporter's 
notes show that when you brought forward Passow, you 
did not give the primary meaning until I called upon you to do 
it," we tell him, he is fearfully misled by anger and passion. 
The reporter has no notes, unless this much — "Reads ;" for 
I read mj speech, as you know^ till I jcame to mj last three 



374 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

lexicons — omitting them till all the rest were adduced, then, 
knowing the writings of our opponents under Stokius, Schleus- 
ner and Passow, I opened and read them all infuU^mid repeated 
them, giving every meaning; and mj opening speech 
will show that on Passow I gave "immerse and submerse," 
and I remember very distictly that Dr. Graves was seated by Dr. 
Varden and as I read "immerse, submerse" he nodded his head, 
and in an undertone said, "that's rio:ht." He never asked me 
to read a word of it. In a later speech, when quoting Passow, he 
called for it. He forgets. What misleads Dr. Graves is, he 
saw the speech as published in the Carrollton Democrat, and I 
had all authors briefly quoted in the point at issue — does it 
imply affusion? And I had not time to copy those lengthy ex- 
tracts into it during debate, and there is the snare that has caught 
the Doctor's feet. Passow also gives "sprinkle," ^'■generally, to 
sprinkle upon, to pour upon." Our first speech has the whole 
save his quotation of Rost and Palm, and they are the same as 
Passow. 

Schleusner quotes that "in certain manuscripts it is rantizontai " 
sprinkle, instead of bapiizontai, Dr. Graves says "they are feiv 
— two perhaps." He adds: "not the oldest J' ITow^ look at 
the facts. There are nine such, embracing the two oldest in 
the world — Sinaiticus and Vatican I Cannot every one see 
that the Doctor is simply desperate and in the bag all over. 
But to correct. Hence it is "many" as in "certain" MSS. He 
says many authorities when considerably below nine. It is 
sprinkle in Euthimius also, a Greek of the 4th century. Yet 
on such a blunder as his here he bases an attack on my decla- 
ration or rendering of one word of no value to the point, when 
there were many, and embracing all the oldest and best copies 
of the Bible in the known world. 

But let us sum up a little. We have all the lexicons — 25 
Hebrew, 3-2 of the greatest Greek lexicons, 5 Arabic lexicons, 
the equivalent of 23 Syriac lexicons, 2 natives when it was a 
spoken language; besides ^thiopic, Chaldee, Persic and Lat- 
in — making quite a hundred of the greatest standards of all 
ages — all with me and against my opponent. 

Then A. Campbell's rendering showed baptidzo never means 



Mode of Baptism. 375 

to dip. Conant's renderings show that he out of 63 consecu- 
tive occurrences did not find it meaning dip in a single instance 
in the 63 cases, and immerse only 10 times, while it was 
"whelm" and overwhelm 53 times. Ingham found it meaning 
to dip only once in 169 cases, in his estimation. In a word — 
the summary of seven or eight — see my first speech — of the 
greatest lights immersion has produced, finds baptidzo mean- 
ing to dip only 18 times out of an average of 475, that is 457 
against 18 for dip ! ! But, he falls back on current usage — 
icsus loquendi. But are all these great scholars, the most re- 
nowned Baptists they have ever had, are they all a body of 
dolts? Are they a set of ignoramuses? Was Gale a fool, 
Carson an idiot and Conant and A. Campbell imbeciles ? Who 
dare challenge their mental vigor? If Dr. Graves is correct 
as to lexicons, all these men are fools. And why did 
Carson admit — p. 55 — that he had all the lexicographers so 
against him on his position ? It was the same position exact- 
ly that Dr. Graves holds. He said, "My position is that it 
(^baptidzo) always means to dip." He then admits all the com- 
mentators and lexicons are against him. Carson was frank. 
By his own canon no Baptist is baptized, save those who come 
from us. Dip is no meaning of baptidzo; immerse is a very 
rare meaning, and to sink is not a safe way to be baptize-d. 
Immersing is sinking, not coming out. Usus loquendi crushes 
him. Usus loquendi interpreted by Conant, Gale and Carson 
' — all Baptist — their greatest scholars is against them as 457 
against 18 ! ! 1 

The Doctor returns once more to Agamemnon, and thinks 
an old superstition required his immersion in that lake. Let 
it be produced. There was no such requirement: If so, then 
in English, it would read, "he shall sink himself in the lake." 
That would be equivalent to drown himself in the lake. If a 
word had been used like our word plunge simply, it would 
not involve submersion necessarily at all. What Dr. Graves 
means by "no book giving Origen for baptidzo rendered 
sprinkle," we say, the Doctor being hard of hearing, gets bapto 
and baptidzo confounded, that is all. 

lie says Gazes, and a half dozen lexicons^ say so and 



376 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

so. Has it come to that now ? Comej Doctor, that is too 
bad. You have been scolding me these three or four days 
for having these enormous books, these feartul folios, and 
now, all at once, they are like the drowning man who hailed 
old. JS^oah's ark, "why, it's no rain at all, only a little shower !" 
Gazes is as large as half a dozen of his Liddell and Scott he 
so prizes. Suicer's definition quotes as much on baj)tklzo as 
would cover twenty or twenty-five pages of Liddell and Scott 
I reckon, were one to count, while Liddell and Scott's defini- 
tions can be covered by a square inch. The Doctor is wild — 
rubbed up against Ewing too much. 

He next quotes Leigh as saying, "it never signifies lavare 
(wash) except by cousequeiice." Mistaken again. Leigh is 
quoting Beza there to show his view, as he does many others 
in his lexicon. Leigh's definition is, it primarily applies to 
any washing, even "to that where there is no immersion;" that 
it is adspergere, "to sprinkle," quoting Yossius. When the 
Doctor tells you I have not given you an authority for sprinkling 
he only means that he is tired of serious debate and higli 
tragedy and is joking you awhile till he rallies; he'll get sober 
soon. 

I never stated that a version was equal to the original. I 
read where others so held, and where Gale considers the 
Syriac nearly as authoritative as the original. I found Drs. 
Judd and Graves had said all I wanted, and read from 
and endorsed them. As to the lexicons, he has to translaie 
his lexicons on Greek just as we do on Syriac. If he has 
Liddell ancl Scott in English, so I have Catafago written 
originally in English, defining baptize in Arabic {amad), Ijy 
" to be wet with rain.'" So is the Latin definition of the 
Greek work of Castell. We have no trouble here. We 
know what words these authors use for sprinkle, pour, dip, or 
immerse. Indeed, the words for dip, immersion are very am- 
biguous while their adspergo, per/undo, profunda, affundo, 
begiessen, etc., are perfectly clear, definite, decisive, unambig- 
uous. 

Poor Liddell and Scott come up again. Wh}^ does not the 
Doctor meet the points we make against his favorite lexicon ? 



Mode of Baptism. 377 

He hitches on to the first meaning. Why does he not take 
this author's first meaning, "dip repeatedly?" He sees 
it will not do. He abandons it at once. Why not settle on 
some standard or rule of interpretation ? All is uncertainty 
with him. Liddell and Scott keep changing, drop out,- take 
on, and yet won't get right. NowPassow and these great au- 
thorities we quote, are sustained by the facts. Origen, Basil, De- 
mosthenes, Alcibiades, Pindar, all the earlier Greeks, as well 
as later ones, like Origen, use haptidzo for sprinkle and pour, 
as well as the root of it, hajpto. Anthon shows that hapto is 
applied to tinging, coloring the parts about the eyes, the face. 
Hence we put Anthon against Anthon squarly, that settles 
him, then place Dalzal, Kuhner, Andrews, Groves, Kouma, 
Gazes, and a host of others who give besprinkle, sprinkle, 
(brecho) for bapto, and Origen, and the host we read on bapto 
to-day, to keep company. 

And now, on the versions, these most perfect witnesses 
here, look at the facts. You must remember that lexico- 
graphers have been and are largely dependent on ancient 
versions for their definitions of Greek, Hebrew and Syriac 
words. They are their greatest source of information, were 
the main and almost only source, till comparative philology 
was studied. We have seen that the old Itala, Jerome, Syriac, 
Ethiopic, etc., render bapto sprinkle — Rev. xix. 13. 

We have seen learned Greek fathers do so. We have seen 
that learned Greeks in Constantine's day translated bapto by 
rantidzo — Mark vii. 4. The two oldest manuscript Bibles in 
the world to-day, over fifteen hundred and fifty years old, do. 
Euthymius, a learned Greek father of the fourth century, 
translates baptidzo by rantidzo, to sprinkle. Seven other an- 
cient copies do so. The reason they all render that one place 
— Mark vii. 4 — thus, is, it was an added and superstitious 
Jewish baptism, always performed simply by sprinkling, no 
other way at all, and hence they, in transcribing, did what oft 
copyists did, translate the word into what expressed it exactly. 
They did not even like to recognize that under the name of 
the word for their solemn ordinance, and hence they tell us 
exactly what the daily Jewish baptism was — sprinkling. AVe 



37S The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

saw that the Arabic, in the golden age of their learning, 
translates haptidzo by three words — amad [amadi) gasala and 
tzevaga (tzeva). The first of these is never immerse by the 
Arabic lexicoiis. It applies to such affusions as wetting with 
rain, dew; sprinkle with water, perfusion. 

Yet it habitually translates haptidzo in the iv^ew Testament 
when they read Greek familiarly, and translated Homer, Plato 
and xlristotle for the masses. 

Then gasala, to wash, never, never means dip, no more than 
ameda, never is rendered dip or immerse by any authority on 
earth we ever saw. It means to wash, cleanse, bedew, perfuse, 
besprinkle; it translates baptidzo and its uounsin a number of 
places in the New Testament. 

Then we saw^ that Rabbi Furst defined tzeva by " moisten, 
sjtrinkle, baptize." And here once more we assert that Dr. 
G. neoer heard one word from any respectable source against 
Furst in his life. He stood till his death lately at the head of 
the scholarship of the world, without a peer in the colleges. 
It is the rule with immersionists to traduce those they cannot 
meet. Castell gives pour out {effudit as one of its meanings. 
The great Hebrew scholar of the fourth century, Jerome, 
translates tzeva sprinkle just half the times it occurs in the 
Old Testament, wet the other two. This word primarily 
means aspersion, to trickle in drops, etc. It applies in Arabic 
to sap dropping from cuts in a tree or vine. This word of af- 
fusion translates haptidzo about thirty-eight times in the I^ew 
Testament. 

Then comes the grand old Peshito, terror to all immersion- 
ists now. This word amad, which Dr. Graves admits is the 
^ame as the Arabic, as clearly it is, this word that only means 
immerse derivatively, and never occurs thus in the I^ew Tes- 
tament, this word that translates louo, twice from the Greek in 
Susanna, ch. I, ver 17, etc., louo, that whenever it is modal is 
pour, sprinkle, which his own Liddell and Scott to day, in 
their English edition defines ''pour, (water for washing)," 
which Galen, the learned native Greek lexicographer of the 
second century, defines sprinkle, pour, this word is translated 
amad in Syriac. Yet this Syriac word amad^ sprinkle, wet 



Mode of Baptism. 



379 



with rain, it translates baptidzo constantly in the ITew Testa- 
ment, in the apostolic age, in the best, the purest, the most 
literal version ever made on earth. What more do we want ? 
What else could we want ? Ko wonder David is translated in 
tliis version as saying, "My couch have I baptized with tears." 
It is not astonishing that Ezekiel is translated as saying, 
'• Thou art the land that is not baptized ! no, upon thee the 
rain has not fallen." That the woman "began to baptize 
Christ's feet with her tears," and he turns to her and says, 
"My feet hath she baptized with her tears,"-— 7mze out 



380 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SIXTEENTH SPEECH. 



Argument from the Ancient Versions. 

Mr. President: — In introducing my argument from the 
ancient versions in support of immersion being the native, 
literal signification of the Greek verb baptidzo, I wish to pre- 
face it with the remark, that from them, we can learn the 
accepted usus loquendi — the current and primary meaning — of 
any word in the age the version was made, at least, what it 
was understood to mean by the translators. We may then 
regard them as only second in authority to the writings of the 
Greeks themselves. 

The Septuagint. 

The first version, made of the Hebrew of the Old Testament, 
that has come down to us, was translated by seventy learned 
Jews, who thoroughh' understood their own mother tongue 
and the Greek language, from the Hebrew into Greek in the 
third century before Christ. 

Touching the use of the term baptidzo and bapto in the Old 
Testament, I quote Dr. Home's second rule : 

"All the significations formerly given to Hebrew words are to be con- 
sidered correctly given which the Septuagint or other Greek translators 
express by the same or similar Greek words, although no trace of such 
meaning appears in any oriental language" [as Sanskrit or S;^T:iac]* — 
Hornets Intro. ^ p. 334. 

My first argument from the Septuagint is this: 

1. In Hebrew, the word taval, signifies " to dip, " to im- 
merse," and is the term as generally used to express the act 
of putting under or into, as the verb to dip, in our language. 

i!^ow, the seventy, in translating this term into Greek, one 
instance excepted, universally used the Greek verbs bapto and 
baptidzo^ and never by a verb signifying "to sprinkle" or "to 
pour; therefore, in the estimation of these seventy learned 



Mode of Baptism. 381 

Jewish scholars, who, it cannot be doubted, understood their 
own mother tongue and were thoroughly conversant with the 
Greek language as spoken and written three hnndred and 
fifty years before Christ, bajpto and baptidzo were synonyms of 
the- Hebrew word taval, which never properly means "to 
sprinkle" or ''to pour," but invariably "to dip," "to im- 
merse," " to overwhelm." The one exception is in Genesis, 
where thej- use moluno, "to dye," "to stain," to indicate the 
act of col oring Joseph's coat : 

"And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped 
the coat in the blood," etc. 

ISTow, let it be remembered that moluno no more means to 
" sprinkle " or " to pour upon " than hapto or baptidzo does, but 
is here used metaphorically by the translators, not in the 
original, the effect being put for the act that produced it. 
The Holy Spirit designates the act by which they colored the 
coat, " they dipped it in the blood of a kid," while the trans- 
lators only express the effect, " they dyed/' etc. 

The Seventy in no single instance employed raino, or perri- 
raino, or rantidzo, or cheo, or encheo, or epicheo, or proscheo, or 
koMcheo, or eiiehuno, or any term that undoubtedly signifies 
'^ to sprinkle," or " to pour" as a proper, or even figu- 
rative, signification of taval which, all scholars and all Jews 
agree, signifies only " to dip" or " immerse." If they ever so 
used it let the defendant point out the instance. If he cannot, 
then the Septuagint version, it must be admitted, sustains my 
position. One particular example I wish you all specially to 
notice — i. e., the case of the leprous Naaman, 2 Kings : 

" And Elisha sent a messenger unto him, saying, * Go and wash in Jor- 
dan seven times, and thy flesh shall come again to thee, and thou shalt 
be clean.' " 

The prophet told him to go and wash {rachats) himself seven 
times in the river Jordan! T^ow, Dr. Alting and the most 
learned rabbins tell us, that invariably in the Hebrew purifi- 
cations where rachats, " to wash," is spoken of, either of the 
clothes or of the person, the whole body must be immersed 
in wate:^. Xow, the Septuagint reads : 

"Naaman kai abaptisonfo en to Jordane.''^ 



382 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Can the most prejudiced an ti-immersionist before me doubt 
for a moment that baptidzo indicated an immersion here ? 

IN'ow, what would you Pedobaptists think of me should I 
try to prove to you, in the face of these facts, that i*faaman 
did not dip himself in the river Jordan or even go into the 
water, but that he only went near the river, on the bank, and 
his servant went down and brought up some water in a pitcher, 
and he sprinkled or poured it upon himself seven times, to 
fulfill the prophet's command to bathe in the river? You 
would say that I most evidently perverted the plain word of 
God and should be discountenanced as an honest teacher. If 
there is a scholar, or a commentator, or teacher on the wide 
earth who presumes to make such a rendering in this case I 
I have not heard of him, and hope I never may, for the honor 
of the human race. But, mark well, the selfsame arguments 
employed by some, and they are the same few controversialists 
I referred to above, of a very recent date, to keep Christ out of 
the river Jordan, will keep ^aaman out also, and they can be 
no more honest in the one case than in the other. Understand 
me, I do not presume to say that my opponent will stoop to 
such unscholarly and unchristian sophistries as would teach 
his people that ITaaman was sprinkled seven times (en toJor- 
dane) with the river Jordan, and not in it — no ; but should he 
do so, I cannot modify my position. 

Now, as certainly as the Greek of the Septuagint indicates, 
without a dDiibt. that N^aaman immersed himself in the river 
Jordan, just so certainly does th-e Greek of the New Testa- 
ment indicate and declare that Christ was immersed by John 
in the selfsame river. Compare the two records : 

. . "Naaman kai ebaptisonto en to Jordane.^'' — 2 ffings v. 14. 
^^ Jesus . . kai ehaptisthe apo Joahnon eis ton Jordanen.^^ — Mark i. 9. 

And as certainly were the people whom John baptized im- 
mersed in the Jordan as was Naaman. Read the record : 

^^Kai ebaptizonto en to Jordane^ — Matt. iii. 6. 

One can with no more reason or honesty deny the one of 
these cases than the other. 

The testimony of the Septuagint version — which is the con- 



Mode of Baptism. . ^St, 

joint testimony of seventy learnedJews, an J impartial witness- 
es they were — is that haptidzo signifies "to immerse," and only 
"to immerse." 

2. There were two other versions of the Old Testament, in- 
to Greek, made between the latter half- of the first and the 
middle of the second centnries, and both of these translate 
taval invariably by bapto and hajptidzo, never by raino, echeo, 
brecho, or any verb that means to sprinkle or to pour, never. 

Peschito— Simple Syriac-Version. 

It is now in order, and it has not before been in order for 
either my opponent or myself, to speak of the Syriac Version. 
This version has been almost the song and the chorus of my 
learned friend from his first to his last speech. You have 
been led to believe, if you believe his oft-repeated assertions — ■ 

1. That this version, and not the Greek of the evangelists, 
is in the very language in which Christ taught the people, and 
gave the commission to his apostles, and — 

2. That it was made in the life-time of the apostles, if not 
by them or their immediate disciples, and — 

3. That it is of equal, if not superior authority, in settling 
this act of baptism to the inspired Greek text of the 'New 
Testament, and — 

4. Finally, that the Syriac unquestionably determines the 
baptismal act to have been a " sprinkling" or a " pouring," or 
"standing up," but not an "immersion," never. 

]!^ow, I am prepared to show you that not one of these posi- 
tions is true, and that all the ado that has been made these 
past four days about the Syriac Version, has been to impress 
you with the extent of his familiarty with the language, be- 
yond this, " Vox et preterea JiihiL^' 

1. It is evident to me that Christ spoke the language in 
which the N'ew Testament was written, because the most uni- 
versally used and understood. Dean Alford in the last edition 
of his Notes, concedes the Gospels were written in Greek. 

"On the whole, then, I find myself constrained to abandon the idea 
mamtained in my first edition, and to adopt that of a Greek original." 



384 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The learned Wm. Steiger was professor iu the theological 
school of Geneva, during a part of the present century. His 
lectures or General Introduction were published at Geneva in 
1837, after his death. Concerning them the editor says, 
" That in them the last discoveries are summed up, the last 
systems are mentioned." And yet, without knowing anything 
about it. Eld. Ditzler contemptuously speaks of this work as 
" some old book." 

Steiger, who ought to be supposed to know something of 
these matters, says : 

"The Peschito was made for the use of the churches of the interior of 
Sj^ria only, because near the sea, (on which Palestine bordered), j^^e Greek 

was spoken.^'' 

The Greek language was the most universally spoken lan- 

o:uao:e. Cicero said of it ; 

' ' While the Latin tongue is spoken only in a few places, and by com- 
paratively few people, the Greek tongue is used throughout the known 
world." 

If Christ spoke the language that was the best understood, 
ai]d by the largest numbers, he spoke the Greek, and for this 
very reason the Holy Spirit selected the Greek. 

It is noticeable that whenever the Savior used a Syriac 
phrase the evangelists translated it into Greek, which is 
opposed to the idea that he spoke in Syriac altogether, e.g.^ 
" talathi cumV " Moi, Eloi lama sabacthanV 

2. ISTor was it made by the apostles, nor in their life time, 
nor by their immediate disciples. 

We have already seen there was no use for it until Christi- 
anity had penetrated into the interior of Syria, and the Greek 
had ceased to be universally spoken by the people, long after 
the death of the apostles. 

Those who have had some special purpose to serve by the 

use of this Syriac Version, as my opponent has, have ever been 

wont, as he has from day to day, to extol the Sj'riac above all 

that's written, reminding me of the language of Bishop Home 

in his Introduction to the Critical Study of the Scriptures: 

"The most extravagant assertions have been advanced concerning the 
antiquity of the Peschito Version." 



Mode of Baptism. 385 

Inasmucli as Eld. Ditzler has been going into ecstasies over 
the Syriac, I ask him here, with a good deal of emphasis, 
when was this translation made ? 

Reuss, of Strasburg, and Scholton, of Leyden, unite in 
giving a very sensible reply, and that is, "that we have no 
means of accurately knowing," (Die Zeit, in der sic enstand, 
ist nicht genau festzustellen). 

Steiger, in his General Introduction to the lN"ew Testament, 
without venturing his own opinion, says, "It is believed to 
have been made about the year A. D. 200." But Dr. Arnold, 
of Halle, in Herzog's Religious Encyclopedia, 22 vols., who 
planted himself on the facts, remarks, that the first historic 
proof of the existence of this version is found in the works of 
Ephraim the Syrian. (I omit the German, though I have it 
here.) And when, pray, did this Ephraim live ? Not till the 
eighth decade of the fourth century, A. D. 380. 

This, Mr. President, is the version which my learned friend 
says was made almost under the very eyes of the apostles, in 
the apostolic age, and is fully equal if not superior to the text 
that was inspired by the Holy Spirit ! ! 

But, sir, his reason for so doing is obvious enough. He 
desires to give this translation all the weight of authority he 
possibly can, in order to be the better able to transfer to hap- 
tidzo what he supposes to be the meaning, or meanings, of 
amad. 

It may well be doubted whether it is proper to attach so 

much critical value to the Syriac translation as my opponent 

has done. He appears to regard it as a thing of perfection. 

Hear what Steiger, whom we have already quoted on another 

point, says of this version : 

" This translation is unequal, sometimes it adheres to the letter, some- 
times it is a little paraphrastic." 

I hope that these considerations will lead Eld. Ditzler to 
esteem his Greek Testament, God's Word, above the Peschito 
Version, made by fallible man. I say all this not to under- 
value or to impeach the Syriac, but to vindicate the honor of 
God's word. 

And now, what about amad 9 I promised my opponent that 
25 



386 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I would, in due time, come to this favorite word of his. Ke- 
specting its meaning he has already delivered himself a full 
score of times daily, from the first day. I hope he is satisfied 
iind will patiently listen to what I have to say on this subsidiary 
matter. 

The Syriac language has a verb for " sprinkle," viz., ras, 
and this is found Hebrews ix. 19; and it is followed by the pre- 
position a/," besprinkled upon the book and upon the people." 
This is the full rendering of the Syriac. The same root is 
found in its noun form in the same epistle xi. 28 : " Through 
faith he kept the passover and the sprinkling of blood." 
But this, mark it, is not the word used in connection with the 
ordinance of baptism anywhere in the Syriac Version. 

So, too, we discover in the Syriac [N'ew Testament a word 
for to pour, eshad. Schindler gives as its raesimug, fudit^ effudit. 
This is its primar}^ and general signification. It is emplo^-ed 
in the Peschito version in Acts ii. 17: "I will pour out my 
Spirit on all fiesh," etc. And again. Matt. xxii. 35 : "All the 
righteous blood shed upon the earth." But this is not the 
word that renders haptidzo. But this word is never used to 
translate haptidzo in the Syriac Version. 

Then, again, the Syriac has an appropriate verb for wash — 
L e., secho. Let the learned take their Syriac Testaments and 
turn to Acts xvi. 33: "He took them the same hour of the 
night and washed [secho) their stripes." And in Hebrews x. 
.22: "And our bodies washed with pure water." But this 
word is never used in the Syriac to render baptidzo. Tseva 
also me'ans sometimes " to wash" secondarily. 

Tseva or tee^te, signifies " to dip," but this verb, Yik^hapto in 
Gre^k, is never used to translate baptidzo, in the Syriac. 

Amad signifies " to dip," "to immerse," and is the verb in- 
variably used to translate baptidzo. What is the literal mean- 
ing of this verb? is now the question before us. 

Some have supposed that amad signifies " to purify," but we 
find in Syriac another word for this, deka, defined in Castell's 
Polyglotta, purijicavit, mundavit, etc., and is rendered in the 
English version, Matt. xi. 5, "and the lepers are cleansed." 
But deka does not express the action baptidzo. 



Mode of Baptism. 387 

Then, again, there has been a conjecture that amad means 
" to confirm/' as though it favored Episcopal confirmation. 
But there is a Syriac word meaning " to confirm." That verb 
is ^Aar, defined by Castell, co7?/?rmaifw5 est and stabilivit, and is so 
rendered Acts xiv. 21 : *' Confirming the souls of the disci- 
ples." 

I might go on with similar instances, but sufficient induc- 
tion of cases has been made. Here are words denoting these 
specific actions, but no one of these is ever used to render the 
word baptidzo in the New Testament. But we have in the 
Syriac no word that means specifically '' to dip" or "immerse," 
thus answering to baptidzo of the New Testament, at least, so 
says my worthy opponent! Now, I affirm here squarely that 
this word amad, which is always employed in the Peschito to 
render baptidzo, means "to dip," "immerse," never properly 
"to sprinkle" any more than uur "to dip" means "to sprin- 
kle." 

Lexical Authorities. 

I now propose to give you every standard lexicon and criti- 
cal authority touching the meaning of the word amad, which 
the Syrian translators invariably employed to translate baptidzo, 
and its cognates, and thereby end the discussion upon it, if pos- 
sible, in all coming years. I pay this attention to this version 
because my opponent and some others so pervert its meaning 
and use in order to force it to sustain sprinkling : 

Castell (Lex. Heptaglott, 1669,) defines amadhj '■'■ ahlutusest, baptizatus 
es< ^mme7•s^(!, to bathe, baptize, immerse." 

MiCELaELis (Lex. Syr., 1788,) by the very same terms, and adds, that it 
comes from the Arabic ghamat, to immerse, and not from the Hebrew 
amad J to stand. 

SCHAAF (Lex. Syr., 1708,) defines amad, " ablutus se ablutics intinctus, im- 
mersus inaquam, baptizatus est^ to wash one's self, to Wash, to dip, to im- 
merse in water." 

GuiDO Fabricius (Lex. Syr. Chal., 1592,) defines it, ^^bapiizavit, intingit, 
lavit_ baptize, dip, bathe." 

SCHINDLER (Lex, Pcntaglott, 1612,) defines it, baptizatus, in aquam im- 
mersus, twictus, lotusfuit, to baptize, to immerse into water, to dip, bathe." 

BuxTOEFF, (Lex. Chal. et Syr., 1622,) gives '^baptizari, intingi^ abluij 
dbluere, to baptize, dip in, to wash," etc. 



388 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

GuTBiER, in his lexicon attached to liis edition of the Syriac New 
Testament, defines amarf, '■'■ haptizavit, baptizatus esty to immerse, to be im- 
mersed." 

Dr. Gotch, an Episcopalian and a thorough orientalist, after the most 
critical examination, says : ** Amad in Syriac signifies to immerse, never to 
stand, much less to sprinkle." 

Bar Ali, Syrian, A. D. 885, quoted by Dr. Davis of Regent's 

Park College, London : 

^'■Amad (in different forms) : (1) An immersion, a bathing, a dipping. 
(2) He was immersed, he was baptized. (3) Baptism or immersion. (4) 
Pillar, column, pillar of light. (5) He who dives or bathes." 

The testimony of another lexicon by Bar-Bahlul, who 
flourished in the tenth century, is also given, and is substan- 
tially the same. 

Bernstein's. — ^^ Amad, (1) he was dipped, immersed; he dipped, or 
plunged himself into something. ' It plunged itself {amad) into the 
depth of the sea.' ' The iDoint of the arrow sank into his brain.' Figura- 
tlvely, the day dipped itself, i. e , it waned, it disappeared. (2) To be 
bathed, washed, immersion in water. (3) He was initiated by means of 
the sacred bath, he was baptized. Aphel, )Greek, baptein, baptizein,) (1) he 
dipped, immersed ; (2) bathed, washed ; (3) baptized." See his Lexicon 
Syriacum to Kirsch's Syriac Chrestomathy and the references under the 
word. 

Can it be questioned by any fair minded person, that amad 
means ''to immerse," I'to dip ?" If standard lexicons can set- 
tle any question they settle this, that its proper meaning is 
" to dip," " to immerse." 

The use Made of the Syriac Verb for the Act of Baptism in the New 

Testament, 

Dr. Gotch, in his very learned and valuable "Examination," 

gives in substance the following results : 

'' That the Syriac verb a7nad and its derivatives, are employed for the 
Greek verb hnptidzo, and its derivatives in one hundred and twenty instan- 
ces ; and the noun maaduthito (which signifies both baptism and baptis- 
tery) is used four times fov kolumbethra — a swimming pool (John v. 2. 4,7 
and ix 7\ and twice for photisthenies — having been enlightened (Heb. vi, 4, x, 
82," ) [i. e., having descended into the baptistery.'] 

It must be evident to the reader from the above summary 
of results, that the Syriac verb arrtad meant, in the estimation 
of the translator, or translators of the Syriac New Testament, 
soriietliing very different from sprinkling, pouring on, stand- 



Mode of Baptism. 389 

iiig up. The noun derived from it could not have denoted a 
bathing place or a swimming pool, unless the verb conveyed 
the idea of bathing or immersion. The verb is used in Mark 
vii. 4, and Luke xi. 38, for the taking of a bath, and the noun 
also in the former passage for the immersion of vessels and 
different utensils for the sake of purifying them. 

The same verb is used in Luke xii. 50, Mark x. 38, 39, and 
Matt. XX. 22, where the sufferings of Christ are spoken of, and 
the idea of sinking in a flood of afflictions, or of being over- 
whelmed with them, is expressed. 

Those of our readers who remember the description ot 
baptism by Justin Martyr, quoted^ in a former speech, will not 
be surprised at such a rendering as that of Heb. vi. 4, in the 
Syriac version: " Those who once tvent down to baptism" for 
'•'■ Those who were once enlightened." Infant baptism being 
unknown in the first and second centuries, the early Christians 
called baptism illumination^ because the candidates were sup- 
posed to be enlightened in their minds by the word and grace 
of God. (Apologia i. sec. 61.) 

Kow, if Eld. Ditzler has such a profound respect for the 
Syriac, why will he not implicitly bow to its plain teachings 
on these texts? And the best of all, this '^ grand old Syria<3 
Version" supports my position that Romans vi. 4, refers to 
water baptism ! 

Instances of the Syriac Word for Baptism in Other Writings than the New 

Testament, 

IN'umbers xxxi: 23 : ^'All that abideth not the fire, ye shall 
plunge it (Syriac, amud) in water." It is also in the Apocrypha 
in Judith xii. 6, and in Susanna xiii. 15, for to bathe, or im- 
merse one's self, for which the Seventy have baptidzo and louo 
in the middle voice. 

Dr. Gotch adduces instances frorr. Christian writers of the 
use of this verb for immersion. Ephraim Syrus, who flourished 
in the fourth century, speaks of Christ as having been bap- 
tized {am.ad) in the river. " How wonderful is it," he says in 
another place, ^' that Thy footsteps were planted on the waters; 
thiit the great sea should subject itself to Thy feet; and yet at 



390 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

a small river that same head of Thine should be subjected to 
be bowed down and baptized (amad) in it!" As the waters 
• of the sea were placed under the feet of Christ, so his head 
was placed under the flood of the Jordan. 

In the Nestorian Ritual, compiled about A. D. 650, the 
priest is represented as taking the child and dipping (Syriac. 
tsebae or tseva) him in the water, and saying, " Such an one is 
baptized (Syriac, amad) in the name of the Father, etc., and 
then causing him to ascend from the water." In this ritual, 
the verb, amad is used interchangeably with tsebae, which has 
no other meaning but to immerse. In the Syriac Chrestoma- 
thy, to which Bernstein's Lexicon is attached, p, 209, the verb 
is used by Bar-Hebrseas of the leviathan of Job xli. 1, "plung- 
ing {amad) in the depth of the sea." The same verb is used in 
the same sense in Book i., sec. 17, of the Theophania of Eu- 
sebius, written about A. D. 411, and translated thus by the 
late Professor Lee, of Cambridge : "This selfsame Word of 
God also immerged {amad) even into the depths of the sea, 
and determined those swimming natures/' etc. Surely the 
" standing and sprinkling ceremony" of my opponent would 
not suit these passages. 

Baptism Among the Syrians and IVLestorian^ 

The Syrian sect called Zabseans, Mendseans, or Disciples of 
St. John^ baptize by immersion. The name Zabseans is de- 
rived, according to Keander, from the Syriac verb tsebcB, " to 
dip," and they are so called from their manner of baptizing. 
Dr. Wall savs that all the Christians of Asia and Africa, and 
one-third of those of Europe, baptize by immersion (Hist, of 
Inf Baptism, vol. ii., p. 414 ; Robinson''s Hist, of Baptism, pp. 
117-124.) 

That the baptismal act among the Syrians at the time, as it 
was ever after the Syriac version was made, was only by im- 
mersion, there can be no doubt. I hold in my hand a copy of 
the Baptist Sentinel^ containing an article on baptism among 
the Syrians, written scmie years ago by my learned friend, 
Rev. Geo. Varden, D. D. Ph. D., of Kentucky, one of the ripest 
urieutai scholars in the South. Time will not permit me ta 



Mode of Baptism. 391 

read this interesting article, which clearly settles the question 
that the practice of the Syrians was to immerse, and that no 
other mode was recognized among them. He brinjj^s forward 
the fact that in the third century there was a large building 
for the purpose of immersion erected in connection with the 
mother church at Edessa, the capital of the nation, and that 
this building, capable of holding a large concourse of people, 
contained a pool like unto a large bathing vat, and this house 
was esiWed maaduthito, SL baptistery. Only one question need 
to be asked, why this house, and why this pool, unless their 
custom was to baptize by immersion? It was never built for 
any other purpose, certainly not to afford drinking-water for 
the crowds that came to witness sprinkling! Maaduthito is a 
derivative of amad, and determines its meaning to have been 
to immerse, to dip. 

The present mode of baptizing among the Nestorians, is a 
proof that the Syriac amad means to immerse. Let it be borne in 
mind that it is the Syriac language which they speak. " The 
language of the Nestorians, says Dr. Perkins, an eminent 
American missionary amongst them, " a modern dialect of the 
Syriac, is derived as directly from that venerable tongue, as 
the modern Greek from the ancient." (Journal of the S. L., 
1853, p. 382). The Hevs. G. P. Badger, in his "Nestorians 
and their Ritual," Thos. Laurie, in his " Life of Dr. Grant," 
and Smith and Dwight, in their " Missionary Researches," 
speak of their language as Syriac. When two of their teachers 
visited London in 1862, it was by means of the Syriac that they 
were able to hold intercourse with Englishmen, the Rev. B. 
H. Cowper acting as interpreter. It is the Syriac-Scriptures 
that they use. Dr. Grant distributed the Scriptures amongst 
them in the ancient Syriac as well as in the Syro Chaldaic, or 
Syriac in I^estorian characters. But they baptize by immer- 
sion and employ the Syriac amad to denote the act, their ritual 
being the same in this respect as the one already referred to, 
(Badger's " :Nrestorians," vol. ii, pp. 207, 208, ed, 1852; Smith 
and Dwight's "Missionary Researches in Armenia," p. 382). 
Could this have been the case if amad meant to sprinkle, to 
pour, or to stand up ? 



392 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The idea of sprinkling^ pouring or standing up is inconsistent 
with the declaration of the Syriac version of the New Testament. 

Paul looks on baptism as an emblem of burial and resur- 
rection ; Rom. vi,4; Col. ii, 12. But liow could the Chris- 
tians be buried by means of baptism, and raised again, if 
Christ used a word for the ordinance which meant to scatter^ 
diffuse^ or stand wpright, like apillarf If it meant either of these 
how could the descent of Israel into the Red Sea, and their being 
buried out of sight in the cloud and in the sea, and their emera - 
inu' on the other side, be compared to baptism? How could 
tlij noun ever have been used for a swimming-pool, if it means 
sprinkling, or one taking his stand, or standing erect ? Would 
the Syrian translator on that supposition have rendered Heb. 
vi, 4, '' Who have once descended into the baptistery, ^^ if the Syriac 
word for baptism meant to sprinkle, to pour, or to stand erect? 
The inconsistencies and absurdities of the theory are a suffi- 
cient refutation of it. 

But it has been urged by Stuart and others that there is a 

verb in the Syriac that unquestionabl}^ means to dip into, tsehof. 
(or, as my opponent writes it, tseva), and if a specihc mode was 

intended, why was not this used? My reply is that tsebce doei» 
not more certainly point to the act of immersion than does 
amad, and had it been chosen, the same, or some greater diffi- 
culty w^ould have been found with it. How is it with the 
Hebrew? Sprinklers ask why was wot tava instead of taval 
chosen to indicate immersion definitely ? How is it in Greek? 
They say that bapto should have been selected instead of bap- 
tidzo to indicate an undoubted immersion ? And yet, my phi- 
lological friend has spent days in attempting to prove that 
bapto even, means to sprinkle, to pour, to wet in any way ! 
There is the verb to dip, in English, clearly implying a putting 
under and taking out again, and yet we universally prefer the 
verb to immerse, which onty means to put under. It is simply 
impossible to please them. There is not a verb in any language 
under heaven meaning to dip, to immerse, that Eld. Ditzler 
cannot, by the magical and absurd way he deals with bapto, 
baptidzoy2ind amad, make them primarily mean to sprinkle, not 
one. Our own English word to dip, means secondarily to 
sprinkle, to wet, to moisten. 



Mode of Baptism. 393 

Augnstiand Dr. B. Davies suggest, "the reason why the translators of 
the Syriac version did not select tsehoe instead of amod, may possibly have 
been that tsebce had been already appropriated by the Zabseans orHemero- 
baptists, a half Jewish sect, supposed to have come down from John the 
Baptist. The Syrian Christians would naturally wish not to be confounded 
with a religious sect with which they had no communion, and hence 
miglit have adopted another equally appropriate term to denote the bap- 
tisnaal act." 

I have now fulfilled my promise, and met every one of my 
opponent's arguments drawn from the Syriac to oppose im- 
mersion as the practice of the early Syrian Christians in the 
days of Christ and the apostles. The Syriac version, as I told 
you, not only gives sprinkling no aid or comfort, but is a most 
weighty and conclusive argument against him and his sprink- 
ling tradition. Where now lingers the terror inspired the first 
days of this discussion in the breastsof the multitude by those 
huge books ? Every line of them, if only faithfully translated, 
is in support of immersion as the only act commanded by 
Christ or practiced by the apostles for Christian baptism. As 
it has been agreed to refer any further discussions on versions 
to an Appendix,! will say this in conclusion, touching versions. 
The Syriac, nor any other version of the sacred text, is a rule 
to us. Whatever versions or translations may teach, they are 
not our infallible guides, and their renderings are not binding 
upon us. The inspired writings of the prophets, and the 
apostles, and the other holy writers in the original tongues, 
are our ultimate appeal and highest authority, and not trans- 
lations, however excellent and venerable. The word used in 
the Greek Testament, and selected by Christ and the Holy 
Spirit to designate the act of baptism is haptidzo; and to ascer- 
tain its real, current and generally accepted meaning among 
the Greek-speaking nations in the days of Christ, and those 
most familiar with the Greek language in every age has been 
my honest efibrt. 

I close this argument in the language of a noble brother, 
battling in the same cause across the seas : 

" Is not the word divinely chosen, a word which for many hundreds of 
years before, and for hundreds of years after, the commencement of the 
Christian era, has evidently been used by Greek writers when they in- 
tended to designate immersion and invariably to designate nothing less 



394 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

than immersion ? 'If the Head of the church had designed to use a \v\'m 
prescribing immersion as specifically as possible, does the Greek language 
afiord another word as specific as 6ap^id20 .^ Is it not grossly deceiving 
the readers of Pedobaptist pubhcations to teach that both in classic and 
sacred hterature we find baptism including almost ever}' conceivable ap- 
pUcation of water?' And is it honorable, in the presence of existing facts 
to represent it as "probable, though not quite certain, that baptize in tb« 
New Testament signifies to immerse?"' — Ingham, Hand Book of Bap- 
tism, p. 69. 

His impotent attempt to justify his use of Sclileusuer, L musc 
reserve for my next speech, as I see the gavel rising — f Tiu/t n/u-. 



Mode of BArxiSM, 395 



DR. DITZLER'S SIXTEENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — It seems to me, that after four 
days' debate, we should have settled the question of the testi- 
mony of the Greek lexicons and their value, but here, the fifth 
and last day on this question, still finds us contesting this 
point. I presume this will be the last time we will have them 
up now. Let me state concisely and pointedly the merit of 
the Greek lexicon question. 

1. We presented some twenty-five lexical authorities on bap- 
tidzo, all of w^hom (1) gave wash, cleanse, and such definitions 
to this word as E'ew Testament meanings. (2) All of them 
gave either sprinkle, pour, or both, else a word like brecho, of 
"afifusion," as equivalent to both. See Sophocles. He gave 
"ablution, bathe, (baptize) in tears," which is afifusion. 

Then six more, Budseus, 1519, Stephanus, 1572, Scapula, 
1579, Passow,Hedericus, and Schrevellius, and many others, all 
being abridgments of Stephanus, or of abridgments of him. 
He adopts Budseus on baptidzo. 

1. These were out and out immersionist lexicons ; by men dip- 
ped in their own baptism, under a queen who was dipped, un- 
der laws requiring dipping, though Budseus and Stephanus 
lived in France. 

3. They render baptidzo, in its classic use, by sink and over- 
whelm, not dip. 

3. They gave lavo, abluo, as its only 'New Testament sense 
— wash, besprinkle, cleanse. 

4. It was immersionists who had the giving of a strong bias 
that way in the lexicography of the Greek. Despite all that 
the facts are so crushing that we thus have the whole lexico- 
graphy of all ages and nations with us. Here then thirty odd 
lexicons are with us and solid against our opponent. 

We then turn to A. Campbell, and in all his research he 



396 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

could not find baptidzo meaning dip a single time. He found 
bapto meaning dip often — so rendered it — but never this word. 
We saw Conant, out of sixty-three consecutive cases, render it 
by whelm, and overwhelm fifty-three times, all being cases of 
affusion, however, copious — application of the element to the 
subject — not once dip. This is the record of the two most 
noted immersionist writers America ever produced. But dip 
is the word you want. Dipping is your ceremony. You 
don't immerse, sink, the object ; you dip him. Ingham, out of 
one hundred and sixty-nine cases, thinks he has one case — ren- 
ders it dip once. 

Now, why this ado about lexicons, when Ingham has it 
"overwhelm" fifty times, "dip" only once ? You see inconsis- 
tency at every step. Passow is right, therefore, in saying: 
"Generally to sprinkle upon, pour upon, pour over (or over- 
whelm),"etc. He is really sustained by all Baptist writers of note, 
and they heed it not. 

Then came our classic exhibition, and we showed that for 
centuries baptidzo was used in no other sense than affusion, 
even from five hundred and twenty-two years before Christ 
till Polybius ; that these facts pointed to an earlier, remoter 
use; all by aspersion. He has never dared to notice these 
tacts for a moment. We backed it all by elaborately extend- 
ed texts in philology. We showed the universal principles 
and laws of language ; how meanings are derived, and how 
they are discovered ; how the primary can be discovered and 
proved. He has paid no attention here. We showed, that by 
the universal laws of language, baptidzo primarily meant to 
sprinkle. 

We took the meanings all admit it has and tested them by 
established facts, and we found those meanings could not be 
derived from immerse as a primary meaning. 

1. We have now traced baptidzo from its first appearance 
in Greek till before Christ 384, covering one hundred and 
thirty-eight years. 

2. During this period it occurs only in a metaphorical sense. 
No instance of a literal use as yet occurs. 



Mode of Baptbsm. 397 

3. It points, therefore, to an earlier literal use, as all meta- 
phorical uses are based on a preceding literal use. A meta- 
phorical meaning often comes to be the current meaning, and 
a literal one, as was shown. 

4. Baptidzo, in every case, implied affusion, never dip, never 
immerse; and no lexicon ever made gives dip or immerse as a 
meaning earlier than Polybius. That is a late iron age writer. 

6. In every case, as yet, the baptizing element is applied to 
the object, and not the object put into it. 

FIRST LITERAL USE. 

We now come to the first occurrence of baptidzo in a literal 
sense, in Aristotle, B. C. 384. It occurs only once in him. 
"Certain places full of rushes and seaweed, which, when it is 
ebb-tide, are not overflowed {baptizesthai), but at full-tide are 
overflowed (katakluzesthai).'' 

I^Totice here, now. 

1. This is the first occurrence of the word in a literal sense. 
It is very important, therefore, in determining the earlier and 
primary meaning. We see that Jahn, Fairbairn, Glesenius, 
Havernich, and all authorities know nothing of Dr. Graves' 
new idea of primary. We see that Liddell and Scott can nev- 
er settle long enough on any one meaning to let it "cool," till 
they find they are wrong, and change it. And as Dr. Graves 
and his Baptist brother. Prof. Toy, tell us lexicons "are author- 
itative and valuable only as they establish meanings given by 
quotations from approved authors," here we are appealing to 
such authors. By the way, why do not Liddell and Scott cite 
this greatest of all Greeks ? Evidently they did dot know that 
he used the word. 

2. It is by the greatest and most accurate of all Greek schol- 
ars that ever lived. 

3. There is no immerse here. This is out of the question. 
The land was not dipped into the water. 

4. The baptizing element came upon the object baptized. 
That is clear. 



398 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

5. Our law of philology is sustained. As Stuart and A, 
Campbell say baptidzo and kataJcluzo are here used in exactly 
the same sense. ItTow, let us examine kluzo, and see its prima- 
ry meaning. 

The Glosses give on perilduzo, sprinkle (adspergo perlundo). 

Passow. — '^Kluzo. Wash, bedash, wet," etc. 

Budseus and Stephanus, — Periklusmati. Sprinkle (aspergine). 

Clvster is the noun from it." 

1/ 

Graves. — '^Ferikluzo, To wash all round or all over, dash 
water, sprinkle all over," etc. 

The primary force is to besprinkle with force, bedash, as 
when there is force used in dashing the water in one's face, in 
one's ears, eyes, or on the body. 

It is often compounded with kata and pen, as hapto and bap- 
tidzo are. 

Here we see a word that primarily means to besprinkle, 
dash water on any one, infuse it into the ear (see Liddell and 
Scott), comes to mean the same, and is exactly equivalent to 
baptidzo in the first occurrence of that word in a literal sense, 
so far as Greek literature has preserved it. Kluzo like its 
companion, baptidzo in later Greek, came to mean submerse, es- 
pecially in compound forms, the primary meaning, to 
sprinkle. 

Eubulus, B. C. 380, next uses it once — doubtful in its 
meaning. 

Evenus of Paros, about B. C. 250, uses it once. "Wine 
baptizes with stupor, or sleep Qiypnd). 

1. From Pindar to this poet are two hundred and seventy-two 
3^ears, and not once does baptidzo occur, as yet, meaning to 
dip, to immerse. We know that not only poets like Young, 
but Italian and Greek poets speak of pouring " delicious slum- 
bers on mine eyes." 

2. In all cases affusion is pointed out. Here we have done 
what all agree is the only reliable way, inspect the passages. 

3. We saw that bapto^ the root, exhibited the same facts; all 
pointed out sprinkle as the primary meaning of the word, and 
a continued meaning through centuries after Christ. 



Mode of Baptism. 399 

A SUMMAKY OF FACTS AND PHILOLOGY. 

1. Dr. Graves and Carson, Gale, Conant, A. Campbell, all 
appeal from lexicography to the usus loqumdi^ and seek for the 
primary meaning. 

2. We saw that from 522 B. C. till 205 B. C, Polybins' 
birth, haptidzo always implied affusion, never once meaning to 
dip, plunge or immerse. 

3. All the laws of language demonstrate that the process 
in the development of meaning is from sprinkle, to wet, 
moisten, pour, wash ; from pouring water came wash, overflow, 
whelm, overwhelm, sink, drown. They never reverse that 
order. 

4. We appeal to words properly meaning to immerse, to 
dip, and they never have the meanings bapto and baptidzo are 
universally admitted to have. The Hebrew tabha, kqphash, 
sliapo; the Greek enduno, kataduo, pontidzo, buthidzo, katapon- 
tidzo, {dupto, dii^; kolumbao, dip, dive); the Persic ^Az/te; Ethi- 
opic maab, maba; the Arabic gatta, gamara, amasa, gamasa; the 
German eintauchen, undertauchen, sinken; the Latin mergo, im- 
mergo, demergo, submergo, all mean to immerse, are the definite 
words in those languages in constant use in their literature. 
Yet never are they applied to abusing, aspersing or slandering 
pouring abuse on any one. They never mean to wash. They 
never mean to cleanse or purify. They never mean to whelm, 
overflow, intoxicate, make drunk. Let us be specific. 

5. l^ot one of all these words means to asperse, abuse, pour 
abuse upon any one in literal or metaphorical use. Baptidzo 
often so occurs. AspiTsioii, abusing, never comes from 
words properly meaning to immerse, or dip. It does come 
from baptidzo, hence baptidzo never did primarily mean to dip, 
or immerse. 

6. Words properly meaning to immerse never mean to in- 
toxicate. Baptidzo does mean to intoxicate, therefore it does 
not primarily (or generally) mean to immerse. But words 
that do primarily mean to sprinkle, others to moisten, bedew, 
do come to mean to intoxicate. Hence, these facts demon- 
strate sprinkle, moisten, to be the [primary force of baptidzo. 



400 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

7. These words do not properly mean to " overwhelm " — 
neverphilologically take such a meaning. Baptidzo does mean 
"overwhelm" often — is so rendered by Ingham 50 times out 
of 169 cases; 10 times by A. Campbell on one half page. But 
words meaning to sprinkle, then to pour, constantly come to 
mean to "overwhelm," in all languages. Hence, sprinkle is 
demonstrated as the primary meaning of baptidzo. 

8. Dr. Conant renders baptidzo " whelm " 45 times out of 63 
cousecutive occurrences. These words never mean to whelm. 
Whelm cannot be derived from dip. But is constantly a 
meaning of words that mean to sprinkle, pour, primarily. 
Hence, sprinkle is again demonstrated to be the primary 
meaning of baptidzo. 

9. These words never come to mean " to overflow." Bap- 
tidzo does mean "to overflow" the first time it ever occurs in 
a literal sense, so far as found. Overflow does come from 
words meaning sprinkle, pour, hence, sprinkle is again dem- 
onstrated to be the primary meaning. 

10. These words never mean to wash. Baptidzo does often 
mean to wash. Words primarily meaning to sprinkle, to 
pour, do mean — constantly come to mean to wash. Hence 
dip, immerse, never could have been the primary meaning of 
baptidzo, but sprinkle was. (1) There is no philological or 
necessary connection between immerse and wash. You may 
dip in filth, slime, corrupting elements; immerse in ink, mud, 
filthy pools, corroding elements, as well as water. (2) Wash 
as a meaning of baptidzo is older than immerse by from one 
hundred to one hundred and fifty years. Hence, cannot be 
derived from immerse as a meaning of baptidzo. 

11. Drs. Gale, Ingham, Cox, Morell, Mell, all others admit 
that baptism is effected "by superfusion," that is pouring 
upon. But superfusion never can be derived from dip, or 
immerse. Hence these never were primary meanings of 
baptidzo. 

12. ^a2^^f(i^o meant " overflow" one hundred and seventy- 
nine years before it came to mean immerse. Hence, immerse 
is not a primary or even an early meaning of it. 



Mode of Baptism. 401 

13. It meant "to overwhelm" two hundred and twenty-two 
years before it meant to immerse; hence, immerse is a late 
meaning. 

14. It meant asperse, and pour abuse upon people, three 
hundred and seventeen years before it meant immerse. Hence, 
immerse never was a primary meaning. 

15. It is claimed that baptidzo means to dip, the thing they 
want. Dip cannot philologically come from immerse. The 
one leaves its object in, the other at once removes it — perfect 
opposites. Dip can be intensified into immerse, not immerse 
into dip. 

16. All meanings belonging to baptidzo, or claimed for it, 
are derived meanings, and often prevailing later meanings of 
words primarily meaning to sprinkle, to moisten, where it 
was by affusion. 

17. It is the law of words to intensify, not to grow feebler. 
Our word prevent, the Hebrew and Greek for pray, Greek 
and Hebrew for know, see and hosts of words, stand (khum), 
in Hebrew are a few examples out of scores and hundreds. 
Our fifty words showed it sufficiently. 

18. Our whole body of words showed that it is the uniform 
course of language to develop the class of meanings found 
in bapto and baptidzo, always from aspersion to immersion, 
never from immersion to aspersion. Hence it is infallibly 
certain that sprinkle was the primary meaning of baptidzo. 

As many facts of this kind apply to bapto, the root word, 
which all immersionists say has the same meaning as baptidzo, 
as the above. Words properly meaning to immerse never 
mean to stain, smear, paint nor dye. A mass of facts apply 
here. 

In the face of these facts, how little do we care for Liddell 
and Scott's lexicon with its absurdities and changes? 1. It 
had bathe, moisten, drench, pour upon, steep " dip repeatedly," 
as the first in order. Then to " draw water" was a meaning. 
No sink, no immerse, was in it as late as 1851. Does that show 
accuracy, study ? Does not baptidzo so often in iron age Greek 
mean to sink that he could not have failed to see it, had he 
26 



402 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

looked ? You will think so at least. [N'ow the very meaning 
you affirm was not in Liddell and Scott at all, but dip is re- 
peated, though baptidzo never means dip. Hence we say Lid- 
dell and Scott in this word show less sense than any lexicon 
in existence. Yet it is the favorite with Baptists. 

0, but " he changed it." Yes, he did change it. 1. He 
takes out " wet, pour upon." Baptists sleep easy now. 2. Ah, 
they find "pour" under louo, and it is full brother to baptidzo, 
and Baptists cannot sleep with such a traitor among their 
children in school. It is stricken out. Baptists snore loudly 
now, and dream sweetly. 3. A third alarm is sounded, "to 
dip repeatedly " won't do — out with that. It is stricken out. 
We will get this "crazy" lexicon right yet. Baptists feel 
good all over, and nod refreshingly. 4. A cry is heard, there 
is no immerse, our pet word immerse is not in that lexicon. 
It is changed again, and the Baptists rest well. "And still he 
turns, and turning, still cries, I at last will have my will — der 
tzoph der hunght im hinten.'^ 

As Liddell and Scott figure so largely, let us turn to their 
preface and learn some facts from them. They can best tell 
us what they mean. 

1. They tell us, Preface, xvii, that "for the most part we 

had only spare hours to bestow" on the work. The American 

editor tells us "his time was limited; the best portion of the 

day was wholly occupied with laborious professional duties, 
and he had, therefore, only the evenings and mornings to 

devote to the lexicons. This scanty allowance of time, with 
the tedious duty of proof-reading " ofiered little opportunity, 
etc. Preface to American Ed. viii, 9. Here we see the small 
amount of labor spent — the " scanty," " spare hours," " even- 
ings and mornings of seven to eight years— only an average 
of a few moments to each word. In one lexicon we quoted, 
thirty solid years were spent by the greatest linguist of that 
century of linguists. In another, an aggregate of over three 
hundred years of constant toil and investigation. Passow spent 
years — his lifetime on his work, mainly only getting one-third 
of the lexicon finished. Hence he spent fifty times as much 
care and pains on the words as Liddell & Scott. 



Mode of Baptism. 403 

2. Liddell and Scott sav (2 Pref. xx), their plan was to 
make each article " a history of the usage of the word 
referred to. That is, we have always sought to give the earli- 
est authority for its use first. 

I^ow turn to his definition of baptidzo and he gives only 
three authorities for the word. Plato, alone, has the meta- 
phorical meaning — ^'overwhelmed with questions" and "soaked 
in wine." Those meanngs can never be derived from his 
first definition — " dip repeatedly, dip under." Now for this 
he goes way down in the iron age of Greek and does not give 
an authority earlier than that, and 710 authority for " dip 
repeatedly, dip under." The earliest he gives to support "dip 
a vessel" is Plutarch — -long after the commission was given. 
Yet they (Liddell and Scott) say they " always sought to give 
the earliest authority for its use first.'' ITow, then, this is "the 
earliest authority" they give for dip Plutarch. If " current 
use, if usus loquendi was the jprimary meaning, then baptidzo 
never meant dip in Liddell and Scott's estimation till long 
after the last Apostle was dead. That is too late. 

But that is not all. Liddell and Scott tell us their manner 
of defining. After certain arrangements they say their order 
is — "Then the interpretation of the word, with examples, etc," 
after Passow's style. Not a word about primary meanings 
being those first in order. They tell us "there are few words 
tint do not change their significations more or less in the 
downward course of time. He then tells us a word occurs in 
Homer often only metaphorically, that occurs in a literal sense 
first in Plato. True, and just so it is of baptidzo — it occur- 
ring in a literal sense first in Aristotle. And now notice fur- 
ther what Liddell and Scott say, p. xx. "After the Attic 
writers, Greek underwent a great change.'^ The change is 
COMPLETE in Polybius, with the latter historic writers, and 
Plutarch. " Ah, indeed. And it is only in these very writers 
that BAPTIDZO ever means to immerse. No Lexicon in the world 

HAS given any other AUTHORITY TO SUPPORT IMMERSE THAN 
THESE WRITERS AND THOSE FOLLOWING STILL LATER. Well doUC 

for Liddell and Scott. But Liddell and Scott determined to 
wi[)o oat all Dr. G. has said. They afiix a catalogue of au- 



404 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

thors, with the age in which each flourished, that we may 
" determine the time of a word's first usage, and of its subse- 
quent changes of signification.'^'' That again is exactly what I 
did, in all this debate. ITow, then, Liddell and Scott tell us 
what they mean by '•'first usage^^ — the earliest usage. For 
earliest usage they " give the earliest authority." But Plu- 
tarch is the earliest they give for a literal meaning, or for dip, 
and they do not give immerse at all in any edition till the last 
year or so, when it had undergone half a dozen changes on 
just this one word — one change on louo, wash; pour. Plutarch 
" flourished about A. D. 110." 

We would not quote so much here, but that it throws light 
Oil all our issues — changes of meanings, etc., especially the 
wonderful changes in classic Greek, that ushered in the very 
writers who first used baptidzo in the sense of immerse. We 
are completely sustained by Liddell and Scott in all points, 
and our opponent crushed. 

Of late this Lexicon has been completely manipulated by 
immersionists as already shown. Yet it does not sustain them 
for the simple reason that their whole theory is so monstrous, 
unscientific and absurd, it cannot be sustained. 

Let us now restate plainly the facts. 

1. Liddell and Scott, 1. Define baptidzo, ''To dip repeatedly ; 
dip under." 2. They erase the second part, and later put it. — 
'' dip repeatedly." o. They have '' wet, pour upon." " They 
erase those definitions. There are three changes. 4. They 
proceed to erase " intoxicate," and put it " overwhelmed." 
Here are four changes. 5. They put it dip, spoken of ships, 
to sink them. This is five changes and a false rendering. 
Who ever saw a ship dip in the sense of going entirely under 
as you put men under water when you baptize them ? buch 
a thing never occurred on earth. A ship dipping is four- 
fifths out, so far as she was above water. When a ship goes 
entirely under, it rises no more. 6. He next takes out " dip 
repeatedly," and patches it again, in his Sixth English edition. 
7. He now puts in " immerse" — a word not in any early edi- 
tions. Here then they have changed, re- changed, and changed 
again this Lexicon on this one word. They have done so on no 



Mode of Baptism. 405 

other. It is a good Lexicon — admirable. But wlto can attach 
any importance to what they say on this word after these facts ? 
It is a good Lexicon, though, only because it is simply a con- 
densed translation of Paseow. It never would have been, 
as they stated, but for Passow. 

Gentlemen, of what value among thinkers is such a work? 
It only calls for contempt. It is only a good lexicon in other 
points, because Liddell & Scott did not make, but merely stole 
it. It claims to be an enlargement of Passow. It is only one- 
third the size of I^assow, as you can see, this volume being 
oiie of three in Passow, and the one is far larger than Liddell 
& Scott. He professes to adopt the scientific course of Passow, 
^'to make each article a history of the word." Our analysis 
of his article on baptidzo shows how false it is. He does not 
quote an author for any of his literal meanings earlier than 
Plutarch, years after Christ, and yet gives Plato 429 B. G., for 
a metaphorical use. In a word, it never occurred to Liddell 
& Scott that there must be a literal earlier than a metaphorical 
meaning. Now, Doetor, I deliver the corpse over to you. 

Tingo, Dr. Graves renders immerse. I^ow it was used by 
the fathers always as Pedobaptists use baptidzo, and Germans 
taufen, without impl^dng mode specified. He ought to know 
this. Take a few examples. Tertullian, discussing whether 
the twelve apostles were baptized, refers to the opinion of 
many that when they were sprinkled yadspergo,) by the vio- 
lence of the waves, and Peter, when he '^ began to be im- 
mersed," so the Greek New Testament reads, " was sufficiently 
mersed, [satis mersum),'^ but Tertullian thinks it is one thing 
to be sprinkled or mersed where it was not wanted, " another 
to be baptized {tingo) by the discipline of religion." He often 
uses it thus for baptize. In De Anima he uses tingOs^ then gives 
law, mergo^ profundo as details of the tingo baptize. I have al- 
ready shown that moisten^ wet, is its primary and general 
meaning, stain next. 

We have shown that th-e fathers were with us, and need not 
quote again the same facts over. Indeed, nothing could speak 
the testimony of the fathers more accurately than the versions 
we gave jou, No version for fifteen hundred j-ears supports 



4o6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the Doctor, 'not one. All support us overwhelmingly. As to 
metaphorical uses, are they not always based on real, actual, 
literal meanings? Does not Carson plainly tell him that? 
TV^ill he deny it ? But Origen did not use it metaphorically, 
nor David, Ezekiel, Christ, or Basil. They were all baptisms 
with literal water, all by affusion. There was not a metaphor 
anywhere in it. The land, couch, feet, altar, wood, all were 
physical objects, and water poured on, and rain poured down, 
and tears dropping down, baptizing, were all literal acts. 

The Doctor has repeatedly made his flings at " contro- 
versialists." We regret this. It is in bad taste. He was a 
controversialist of the bitterest type ever known, perhaps, in 
our day, when I was a youth in college. If controversy be 
conducted with candor, investigation be full and impartial, 
controversy is the only way to elicit the whole truth. Clay, 
Webster and Calhoun, Jefferson, Madison and Hamilton, 
Bacon, Locke, J^ewton, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Luther, 
Leibnitz, Calvin, Beza, Wesley, Bunyan and Arminius, not to 
say Paul and Christ, were controversialists, ail, and almost 
constantly. It is little becoming the Doctor, we repeat, to 
make indelicate flings. They may be hurled back if persisted in. 

We have never put the Syriac up to equality with the Greek 
text. Others have, who paid no attention to this question of 
baptism, but because of its untold advantages in settling the 
true import of the Greek. This all critics agree to, and that 
is just what we have done, used it to explain the Greek. For 
that use we have every scholar in the world, including all 
Baptists, with us. 

As to the date of the Peshito, all of the best Oriental scholars 
put it in the apostolic age, and among the Baptists endorsing 
this are Gale, Judd and J. R. Graves, LL.D., as we read in a 
former speech. Origen, born only eighty. five years after John 
died, quotes the Peshito. It was in familiar use then. It is 
quoted or used by a Syrian, A. D. 220, as a familiar document. 
The whole Syrian church — Nestorian, his enemy the Meno- 
physists, Melchite and Maronite, all sects agree that it is 
co-eval with the Syrian church, which we all know existed in 
Paul's day. Tremelius^ Francius^ Martini, Walton, Lowth, 



Mode of Baptism. 407 

Carpzoy, Leusden, Kennicott, S. Davidson, Palfrey, Stiles, all 
held it to have been in the language Christ spoke, and of the 
apostolic age, These testinaonies weigh down the opinions of 
a hundred Arnolds. But why this cry now against a Version 
that immersionists all held in such estimation a few years ago? 
They then thought it supported them. Gotch led them into 
that error. Gotch, Conant, A. Campbell, Judd, all head their 
list of valuable and ancient versions with the Syriac. 

Dr. Graves rightly told you the Syriac and Arabic " amad " 
were the same. But when Michaelis guesses without a word 
of support, and all the facts against him, and all philology, 
that it is the same as another word of another root, with dif- 
ferent import, he is as wild as that " crazy " man who sug- 
gested that baptidzo was from bathos, a word as properly apply- 
ing to altitudes, heights as depths ; and so to baptize you would 
only have to elevate, lift up a man and he would be '^bathosed' 
or baptized. "Crazy" yet! 

At last the Doctor resolves to die in the last ditch. He savs : 
*' I take my position fair, square upon it. It is to dip, immerse." 
But Michaelis, in his own lexicon, gives it, "wash, baptize; 
(Aphel), immerse." By your law you must take the first 
meaning, || 

Catafago., who lived among the Arabs sixteen years as a 
scholar, in his lexicon gives it only the meaning, " to be wet 
with rain." 

Castel], equivalent to twenty-one lexicons on this, based on 
two native Syrian lexicons when it was a living language, 
ninth and tenth centuries, supports this, and gives us sprinkle, 
bedew, sprinkle with rain, dew, etc. 

Gutbier gives to dip, no immerse, only baptize and "susten- 
tavit," that ail know is an error, and opposed to dip or immerse. 

Let the Baptist Gotch show just one place where immerse, 
Greek kataduno, or katapontizo etc., or dupto, are translated amad. 
We have given undeniable instances where the Greek loico, 
wash, pour, sprinkle, is translated amad, and here they ape 
before you. Facts settle the matter, and show what authority 
is eorrecL • 



4o8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Gesenius and Schindler, thought amad was the same as the 
Hebrew, simply because spelled alike, but all scholars know 
that often two Hebrew words are spelled exactly alike, as are 
English words, yet radically diflerent in meaning and use. 
They have it" stand," because they " stood who were baptized." 

Gesenius has it: '''Amad is to baptize, because he stood in 
the water to be baptized." " Quia baptizandus stabat in 
aquam." This answers. This is runious to dip, etc., but is a 
false philology, as Dr. Graves will agree. 

The reason assigned why the Version was made in the 
interior is not sufficient. The Syriac of Galilee was a crude 
dialect, that of Jerusalem mixed, and that will account for 
Matthew's gospel not surviving in the old Syriac dialect in 
which it was composed. In Jerusalem they had the gospel in 
the Syriac, if not several other parts of the 'New Testament, 
before the Greek ones were made. All history and all the 
facts support this, as S. Davidson shows in his Introduction, 
vol. i. The carrying the gt>spel to all nations required it in 
Greek, as that tongue was familiar with multitudes in Egypt, 
Asia Minor, Home, Palestine, and all Greece. 

But the pure dialect of Syria was the one a version would 
survive in, and there it was made, where Paul and John had 
preached so often, as well as Thaddeus. All Syria held that 
Thaddeus made the version of the New Testament, (Biblio- 
theca Orient, tom. iii. p. 212). There is no shadow of proof 
to the contrary. 

Once more the Doctor tries his hand on Leigh — quoting 
from second hand no doubt, hence mislead. He quotes Leigh 
as saying of baptidzo: "Its native, proper signification is to 
plunge into water." Leigh says nothing of the kind, but just 
the reverse, as already produced. That is an out an out im- 
mersionist who wrote immediately after the revival of learn- 
ing, when immersion was law, gospel, salvation and all, to the 
parties so holding, and quoted by Leigh on their side, as he 
gives both sides. But his own position was given; it primarily 
meant any kind of washing, even that "where there was no 
immersion present," as well as adspergere, to sprinkle. 



Mode of Baptism. 409 

It was on louo Liddell and Scott still retain pour in the 
English work, a copy of which I examined. It is rightly 
quoted that way in your Ingham, p. 455, in your hand, as I 
see you have it. 

[NTow, then, with these additional facts before us, how stands 
the case? What has he done but quibble, misunderstand us, 
miss the quotations, dart here and there, but all to no purpose. 
We have pursued him into every retreat, routed him from 
every position, until like the deer pressed to its last refuge, it 
faints and falls by the way. 

What has he done with our Laver argument ? JSTothing at 
all. Mainly he never noticed it at all — only to question 
whether he had included so and so in the quotation I made 
from him, asserting that Hebrews ix. 10 referred to the 
washings under the law. For fifteen hundred years all bap- 
tisms were by affusion. Every Jew daily thus baptized. It 
was with water. They anointed with (en) oil — washed (hudati) 
with water, and they baptized with water. They were baptized 
with the Spirit — it was poured on them as the pitchers of water 
were poured on the altar in Elijah's day ; they pour on the 
w^ater says the Bible, poured it on the altar and the wood. 
Greek writers say baptized the altar — baptized the wood. 

Such are the facts, and they will stand forever. The Bux- 
torff you quote is not the great author I quoted, but his son — 
wrong again. The old and great lexicographer never wrote a 
Syriac lexicon. — [ Time out. 



4- 



410 The Great Carrollton Deeai, 



DR. GRAVES' SEVENTEENTH SPEECH. 

Replication. 

Mr. President : — There are several matters iu my oppo- 
nent's former speeches I wish to notice before submitting 
them to the verdict of pubhc opinion. 

And first, I will assure him that no amount of threatening 
can, for one moment, deter me from exposing the use he has 
made of Schleusner and Stokius in order to convince the 
world that Baptists are unbaptized. His book, containing his 
statements, has gone forth to the world, and his speeches are 
to be given to the printed page to go forth, and these state- 
ments he is wont, in his public lectures, to make all over the 
Southwest; and it is time they should be corrected. 

He urges, in justification of his suppressing a part of what 
Schleusner says of haytidzo^ that I, nor Alex. Campbell, nor 
Ingham, have given all the definitions. If Mr. Campbell, or 
Ingham, or myself, have done a great wrong it in no way 
excuses Eld. Ditzler. But have we, in any sense, misrepre- 
sented Schleusner? We only professed to give what he 
declares to be the primary and 'proper definition of baptidzo, 
seeking, as we are, for its use in this sense in the JSTew Testa- 
ment, not what he claimed to be the secondary and figurative 
use of the word, for on these he discourses through a page and 
a half of his lexicon, nothing of which has any weight in 
determining its literal and proper meaning. This is tl>e 
reason why I have only given, as a rule, the primary signifi- 
cation of Passow, and all other lexicons, and for this reason 
A. Campbell, and Ingham, and writers generally, quote the 
primary definitions only ; and in doing so the lexicons are not 
misrepresented. 

But Eld. Ditzler, in this instance, has palbably suppressed 
an explanation of Schleusner, a part of a sentence, so that he 
makes him testify to a manifest untruth, and to what Schleus- 



Mode of Baptism. 411 

ner does not say when his whole sentence is correctly trans- 
lated. The suppression is openly confessed, and it is one 
that no scholar or controversialist can be excused for perpe- 
trating. Take it as he gives it, and as it stands in his book. 

^'- Baptidzo. Proprie: immergo ac intingo, in aquam mer^o, bapto * * 
In hacautenisignificatione nunquam in NovoTestaniento, sed ea frequen- 
tills in Script. Gr. legitm^, v. c.j Diod. Sic, i. ch. 36, de Nilo exun- 
dante." etc. 

"Properly, to immerse or dip, to plunge into water, from bapto. * * 
But in this sense it never occm's in the New Testament, but it does 
(Xicur very frequently in the Greelx [classic] writers, for example, inHodo- 
rus Siciilus, upon the overflowing of the Nile," etc. 

If this is a fall and fair statement of what Schleusner says, 
then he does say that bajJtidzo is never used in its proper, 
literal signification — i.e., "to immerse," "to dip," " to plunge 
into water," in the 'New Testarnent, which is contrary to what 
he says elsewhere under baptisma, and contrary to the testi- 
mony of all standard critics and lexicographers. To make 
Schleusner say this is to put a falsehood into his mouth. But 
does he say it? is the question. I affirm that he does not; the 
very text manifestly shows he does not. I give it once more, 
letter and point, as it stands in the lexicon, 

'■'■ BaptidzQ. 1. Proprie: immergo ac intingo, in aquam mergo, a 6«pto, 
et respondet Hebraico taval^ 2 Reg. v. 14, in vers. Alex, et tava^ apud 
Symmachum Psalm Ixviii. 5, et apud inGertuTn, Ps. ix. 6. In hac signifi.- 
catione nunquam in N. T., sed ea frequentius in Script. Gr. legitur, v. c, 
Diod. Sic, i. ch. 36, deNiloexeundante: *■ toon chersaioon therioon tapoUa 
hupo ton potomou perilephthenta diapMheiretai baptizomena.'' Multa 
terrestuum animalium, aflumine deprehensorum, submersione periunt." 

Which I translate : 

—"Properly, to plunge into ayid dip in, to sink into water, from bapto, 
and corresponds to the Hebrew taval, 2 Kings v. 14, in the Alexandrian 
version, and [corresponds] to tava in Symmachus Psalm Ixviii. 5, and in 
an unknown writer in Psalm ix. 6. In this signification it is never used 
in the New Testament, but frequently in Greek writers, for example, v. 
c, Diod. Sic, i. c 36, concerning the overflow of the Nile. [Omitting 
the Greek and adopting Schleusner's translation of it.] Many land ani- 
mals, overtaken by the river, perished by the submersion." 

ISTow, the whole matter in dispute, turns on what "Aac" 

refers to in fifth line. Does it refer to the last mentioned 

meaning of tava, as given in the two last psalms quoted, or to 

the signification distinguished by the term ^^proprie^^^ and 



412 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

answering to the Hebrew word tavalf Undoubtedly to the last, 
tava, which is used in the two Psalms referred to, in the sense 
of to destroy by the overflowing ; and Schleusner declares that 
in this sense — i. e., "to drown, to perish by the submersion," 
it is never used in the I^ew Testament, but often in classic 
writers. I submit my translation and construction with con- 
fidence to the verdict of every scholar on the continent. I do 
not think Dr. Yarden,* nor Dr. Talbert, nor Dr. Breaker, nor 
any other member of mv committee of referees, will hesitate 
to endorse them as correct. Not to influence the verdict of 
scholars, but for this occasion, I made my translation and 
criticism and submitted them to Jas. P. Boyce, President 
of the Southern Theological Seminary, one of the ripest 
scholars of this age, for his opinion, which I only received last 
night. He says : 

"Upon the passage you are undoubtedly correct. The hac cannot 
refer to the first, but to the last, and only to the second as it may be re- 
garded as identical with the last. I think it has reference to the last only. ' ' 

I now submit this as a case made out, and as one of the most 
flagrant suppressions of the words of an author, making him 
to say the very opposite of what he does say, that I have ever 
met with. His attempt to turn it oft' with a sneer or a laugh 
will not avail him. His false coin, that he has been so long 
passing off on the ignorant and credulous, is at last nailed to 
the counter. 

I refer all back to my former speech, that they may s^e 
Schleusner's definitions of the noun baptisma^ which Eld. 
Ditzler entirely fails to give, because, had he given it, every 
one could see for himself how foully the author had been 
dealt with. Instead of saying that, in the Kew Testament, 
baptism is never used in the sense of "to immerse," he says: 

'■'■ Baptisma is a verbal noun from the perfect passive of the verb baptidao. 
(1) Properly, immersion, a dipping into water, a bathing. Hence it is 
transferred (2) to the sacred rite which preeminently is called baptism, 
and IN WHICH FORMERLY THEY WERE IMMERSED IN 
WATER, that they might be obhgated to the true divine rehgion." 

You see, that when referring to the physical act of baptism, 

* Dr. Varden was chairmnn of the speaker's committee of referees, viz., 
Dr. J. M. D. Breaker, and Dr. H. Talbert. 



Mode of Baptism. 413 

Schleusner says it means nothing else than immersion or a 
dipping into water, and that this is its sacred or IJlTew Testa- 
ment use. 

Stokius' Lexicon, 

The impression he has so'i :ht to make with this lexicon is 
not justified in the least by tue language of icS author. If I 
have been correctly impressed, it is that this distinguished 
scholar teaches that haiJtidzo means " to wash, to apply water 
in any way, to sprinkle," etc. Let me place Stokius and A. 
Campbell in their true light before my hearers and the world. 

Stokius gives, first the general and then the special, signi- 
fication of words, then the tropical ov figurative uses at length. 
With the figurative uses of baptidzo we have nothing to do in 
determining the action, therefore we do the lexicographer no 
injustice when we give only his meanings of a word when used 
in its physical sense. Therefore Mr. Campbell, nor myself, 
nor any other man, is chargeable with fault because we give 
only the literal, primary definitions of Stokius, and in no sense 
change his meaning. 

What does he say about adspergendo ? He simply gives it as 
his opinion that the washing or cleansing, which he says is 
figuratively called baptism in two places in the New Testa- 
ment to which he refers (Mark vii. 4, Luke xi. 38, where the 
Pharisees, returning from market, are said not to eat unless 
they had baptized themselves), might be and was accustomed 
to be performed by sprinkling water. This is an opinion only, 
which is opposed by Dr. Alting, Dr. Kitto, Dr. Meyer, Mai- 
manides, and all Jewish commentators, who, it must be allowed, 
understood their own customs. But grant that the washing 
before eating, in this instance, was performed by sprinkling, 
does it help Eld. Ditzler's case? !N"ot the least, for Stokius 
says it is only called a baptism by a figure of speech, as we are 
accustomed to say the land was baptized in blood and tears, or 
immersed in calamities, overwhelmed by taxation, etc.; we 
have only the effect in our mind, and have no reference to the 
act that produced it. 

But this figure is not found in the inspired text, it is only 



414 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

the creation of the English translators. The Holy Spirit says, 
that when they came from market, the Pharisees did not eat 
without first washing themselves — taking a bath, says the 
Syriac. Our translators unfortunately translated baptidzo here 
figuratively by "wash," instead of literally and properly, " im- 
merse," hence, all this confusion of ideas gotten up about 
it. Stokius then tells us that by another /^i^re called synec- 
doche, where a partia put for the whole, it is used to denote the 
whole ministry of John, as in Acts xix. 3. Will Eld. Ditzler 
claim that the ministry of John is one of the proper meanings 
of haptidzo'i It is certainly just as much so as " to wash," "to 
cleanse," " to wet," " to moisten," are. The former is so used 
by synecdoche, and the latter only by metonymy. 

Then Stokius says, thirdly, that by metonymy baptidzo de- 
notes the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit at pente- 
cost, as well on account of the abundance of the gifts of the 
Spirit, as that formerly water was poured copiously upon those 
baptized, or they were briefly immersed in water. In this 
sentence I confess that Stokius speaks more like a churchman 
tlian a scholar — his own baptism is at stake. But he says 
that the outpouring of the Holy Spirit was called a baptism, 
not because it was so in fact, or in its action, but in its efiect, 
and therefore figuratively called so because of its abundance — 
it brought them all wholly within its influence — there was an 
immersion in eftect. They were as thoroughly under its in- 
fluence as though immersed in it. 

Now these are all the meanings he gives of baptidzo, when 
used literally, anyv/here. In this Mr. Campbell did not mis- 
represent him, and in quoting his testimony as to the proper 
meaning oi baptidzo, onU' these need be given. To make this 
author favor sprinkling as the only New Testament mode. 
Elder Ditzler would fain make Stokius say, as he docs 
Schleusner, that in its proper, literal sense of "to immerse "and 
"dip" it is not used in the New Testament. Does Stokius 
say this? If under his definition oi' baptidzo he leaves any 
doubt, we should look,Blackstone tells us, elsewhere for some- 
thing written by the same author on the same subject, etc. 



Mode of Baptism. 415 

Let us examine his definition of baptidzo, the only noun in the 
New Testament used to designate baptism : 

" Baptisma. 1.) Generatim et vi originis notat immersionem vel in- 
tinctionem. 2.) Speciatim, a ) proprie notSLtimmersionemj Yelintmctionem rei 
in aquam^ ut abluatur, vel lavetur. Hinc transfertur ad designandnm 
primum Novi Testamenti sacramentum quod initiationis vocant, nempe hap- 
tismum^ quo baptizandi olim in aquam immergebeantur, utut hodienum 
aqua lis saltern adspergatur, ut a peccati sordibus abluantur, illius remis- 
sionem. consequantur, et in foedere gratiae recipiantur, tanquam hseredes 
vitse aetemse." 

Which I translate : 

"Baptisma. 1. Generally, and by force of the original, it denotes im- 
mersion or dipping. 2. Specially a. Properly, it denotes the immersion or 
dipping of a thing in water that it may be cleansed or washed. Hence, it 
is transferred to designate the first sacrament of the New Testament, 
which they call of initiation, namely baptism, in which those to be bap- 
tized were formerly immersed into water ; though at this time the water 
is only sprinkled upon them, that they may be cleansed from the pollu- 
tions of sin, receive the remission of it, and be received into the covenant 
of grace, as heirs of eternal Ufe." 

This testimony of Stokius, which sets him in a clear light 
before the most common mind, Elder Ditzler entirely sup- 
presses, and substitutes for it a few definitions of baptismos^ a 
noun never used to denote the baptismal rite, as ''washing, 
cleansing, baptism." Is this treating a witness fairly — not to 
permit him to speak the whole truth and to distort what he 
does say? 

But is it supposable that Stokius says anything, when he 
defines baptidzo, that contradicts this? By no means. 

He says that tropically, which he explains to mean by a figure 
of speech called metonymy, where one thing as the effect of an 
action is spoken of in place of the action or cause that pro- 
duced it — by this figure, and only by this figure, is baptidzo 
ever used in the sense of" to cleanse," "to wash," and the fact 
that we are accustomed to dip anything in order to wash or 
cleanse it, suggested the figure—but what intelligent person 
would say that " to wash" or " to cleanse," are proper, and real 
definitions of ^ap^2<i2:o? 

But does Stokius intimate that Christian baptism was 
administered by Christ or his apostles by sprinkling? If he 



41 6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

did, it would amount to an opinion only; but giving the proper 
meaning of words is a matter of fact. 

Against his statement under baptidzOy that the subjects were 
formerly copiously poured upon, as well as immersed in water, 
we must place his positive statement under baptisma, (which 
he says is a word transferred to designate the sacred rite), "in 
which formerly those baptized were immersed in water 
although to-day water is merely sprinkled upon them," etc. 

I have thus placed the testimony of Stokius, as that of 
Schleusner, fully before you. We can all see what he does 
and what he does not say. 

He does not say that the proper and literal meaning of bap- 
tidzo in the E"ew Testament is "to wash," or "to cleanse," but 
" to immerse," " to dip into water," and that it can only be 
used to denote "to wash," or "to cleanse" by o, figure of speech. 
He thinks that the Pharisees cleansed themselves when they 
came from market by sprinkling, and, therefore, that washing 
may sometimes be efiected by sprinkling. What shadow of 
support does all this give to prove that sprinkling was enjoined 
by Christ for Christian baptism ? Not so much as a figura- 
tive support. 

In view of the use Eld. Ditzler has made of Stokius and 
Schleusner, it must be that his translations and use of author- 
ities will be very carefully examined before they are received, 
and his violent charges of unfaithfulness, quibbling and sup- 
pression in others will return upon his own head. I will now 
advance my argument direct. 

Argument — Proof from the Universal Testimony of Pedobaptlst Historians 

of all Denominations. 

I introduce my argument, which will be but the testimtony 
of historians, Protestants and Catholics, with the following 
Historical Examination, which occurred this year, and the 
vindication of the professor of history. I clip it from a Con- 
gregational paper, The Mirror^ Maine : 

" Are the Baptists Historically Right? — At the anniversary of 

our Theological Seminarj^ at Bangor, a few days since, the class under 



Mode of Baptism. 417 

examination in Church History gave some answers which struck me as 
extremely remarkable. The questions of the professor, and replies of the 
students, were substantially as follows : 

"Q, — What was the apostolic and primitive mode of baptism? 

" A. — By immersion. 

" Q. — Under what circumstances only was sprinkling allowed ? 

" A. — In case of sickness. 

" Q,. — When was the practice of sprinkling and pouring generally intro- 
duced ? 

'' A. — Not until the fourteenth century. 

" Q. — For what reason was the change adopted. 

" A — As Christianity advanced and spread in colder latitudes, the sever- 
ity of the weather m^ade it impracticable to immerse. 

" The Professor of Church History approved the answers, which faith- 
fully represented his teachings, and none of the clergymen present seemed 
to call the statements in question. Yet if such are the facts, the Baptists 
are historically correct, and we as a denomination are wrong, both in our 
literature and practice." 

Are these answers correct? Prof. L. L. Paine, D. D.,who 
occupies the chair of Ecclesiastical History, in Bangor Theo- 
logical Seminary, Congregationalist, thus answers for himself : 

" It may be honestly asked by some. Was immersion the primitive form 
of baptism ; and if so, what then ? As to the question of fact, the testi- 
mony is ample and decisive. No matter of church history is clearer. 
The evidence is all one way, and all church historians of any repute agree 
in accepting it. We cannot claim even originality in teaching it in a 
Congregational Seminary. And we really feel guilty of a kind of an- 
achronism in writing an article to insist upon it. It is a point on which 
ancient, mediaeval and modern historians alike. Catholic and Protestant, 
Lutheran and Calvmist, have no controversy. And the simple reason 
tor this unanimity is that the statements of the early Fathers are so clear, 
and the light shed upon these statements from the early customs of the 
church is so conclusive, that no historian who cares for his reputation 
would dare to deny it, and no historian who is worthy of the name 
would wish to. There are some historical questions concerning the early 
church on which the most learned writers disagree — for example, the 
question of infant baptism ; but on this one, of the early practice of im- 
mersion, the most distinguished antiquarians, such as Bingham, Augasti 
(Coleman), Smith (Dictionary of the Bible), and historians, such as Mo- 
sheim, Gieseler, Hase, Neander, Milman, SchafF, Alzog (Catholic), hold 
a common language. The following extract from Coleman's Antiquities 
very accurately expresses what all agree to : 

' In the primitive church, immersion was undeniably the common mode 
of baptism. The utmost that can be said of sprinkling in that early pe- 
riod is that it was, in case of necessity, permitted as an exception to a gen- 
eral rule. This fact is so well established that it were needless to adduce 
authorities in proof of it.' 

27 



41 8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

" As one further illustration we quote from Schaflf's Apostolic Churcli : 

* As to the outward mode of administering this ordinance, immersion, 
and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, normal form.' 

"But while immersion was the universal custom, an abridgment of 
the rite was freely allowed and defended in cases of urgent necessity, such 
as sickness and approaching death, and the peculiar form of spr inklin g 
thus came to be known as " clinical" baptism, or the baptism of the sick. 
It is somewhat significant that no controversy of any account ever rose in 
the Church on this question of the form of baptism, down to the Refor- 
mation. And hence it is difficult to determine with complete accuracy 
just when immersion gave way to sprinkUng as the common church 
practice. The two forms were employed, one as the rule, the other as the 
exception, untn, as Christianity traveled northward into a colder chmate, 
the exception silently grew to be the rule. 

" As late as the thirteenth century, immersion still held its ground, as is 
shown in a passage in the Summa Iheologica of St. Thomas Aquinas, 
where the arguments in favor of the two modes of baptism are compared, 
and the conclusion is drawn that immersion is the safer because the more 
Gornmon form, (quia hoc habet communiorem usum). Three centuries 
later, in the time of the Reformers, sprinkhng had become common, and 
even quite universal ; though Calvin speaks of the different forms of bap- 
tism in a way which seems to imply that immersion was by no means 
obsolete. So that Dr. Schaff puts the date quite early enough, we think, 
when he says that * not until the end of the thirteenth century did spruik- 
ling become the rule and immersion the exception.' It is to be remarked, 
also, that this change occurred only in the Western or Latin Church. In 
the Greek Church, immersion has remained the rule to the present day." 

I propose to commence with the historians of the oldest 
church and come down. 

Mj argument is, That act that was practiced by John the 
Baptist, by the apostles, and by all the apostolic churches, and 
which has been perpetuated until this day, must truly repre- 
sent the signification which Christ intended, and the apostles 
understood by baptidzo. 

Apostolic and Post-Apo8tollo Writers, A. D. 33-100, 

John, A. D. 30. " I indeed immerse vou in water.'* Matt 
iii. 10. 

Paul, A. D. 35 to 60. " Therefore we were buried with h^m 
by immersion unto death." Epistle to Rom. iii. 10. 

" Buried with him in baptism." Epis. to Col. ii. 

Barnabas, A. D. 50 to 100, supposed to have been the com- 
panion of St. Paul, in an epistle ascribed to him, and which 



Mode of Baptism. 419 

must have been very early written, whoever may have been 
the author, speaks of baptism as a going, " down into the wa- 
ter." ^' We go down into the water, full of sin and filth, but 
we come up bearing Christ in our hearts," is his language. 

Hermas, writing about A. D. 95, in the " Shepherd," a work 

ascribed to him, speaks of the apostles as having gone ''down 
into the water," with those they baptized, "and come up 
again," 

Justin Martyr, writing about A. D. 140, speaks of those 
baptized, as " washed in the water," in the name of the 
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. 

Tertullian, writing about A. D. 204, says, the person to be 
baptized, " is led down into the water, and with a few words 
said, is dipped.'^ 

Hippolytus, about A. D. 225, says : " For he who goes down 
with faith into the bath of regeneration, is arrayed against the 
evil one, and on the side of Christ. He comes up from the 
baptism bright as the sun, flashing forth the rays of righteous- 
ness." 

The Eastern or Greek Church Historians, A. D. 300. 

Gregory, A. D. 360, says: "We are buried with Christ by baptism, 
that we may also rise with him."* 

BasiL(, a. D. 360, says: "By three immersions the great mystery of 
baptism is accomplished ;" t referring to true baptism. 

Ambrose, A. D. 374, says : " Thou saidst I do beheve, and wast im- 
mersed in water — ^that is, thou wast buried."J 

CYRHi, A. D. 374, says : ' ' Candidates are first anointed with conse- 
crated oils ; they are then conducted to the laver, and asked three times 
if they beheved to the Father, Son and Holy Ghost ; then they are 
dipped three times into the water, and retire by three distinct efforts." § 

Chrysostom, a. D. 398, says: "T > be baptized and plunged in the 
water, and then to emerge, or rise again, is a symbol of our descent into 
the grave, and our ascent out of it."|| 

* Stennett's Reply, p. 144. 
tBaronius, Ann. v. Bing. Antiq. b. xi, ch. xi. 
t Stennett's Reply, p. 144; Bing. Antiq., b. ii, ch, ii. 
§Dupin'sEccl. Hist, ch, vi, V, 2— Orchard's Hist. Bap., p. 43, Nash, 
ed. 1855. 

jl Com. on 1 Cor., Hom. 40, 1. — Bingham's Christ. Antiq. 



420 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Stourdza says : " The church of the West has, then, departed fmm 
the example of Jesus Christ ; she has obhterated the whole sublimity of 
the exterior sign. Baptism and immersion are identical. Baptism by 
aspersion is, as if one should say, immersion by aspersion ; or any other 
absurdity of the same nature." 

Dr. Whitby. — The observation of the Greek church is this, that He 
who ascended out of the water j must ^vst descend down. intoiV^ . 

Dr. Wall. — " The Greek church in all the branches of it does still use 
immersion." "All the Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one- 
tmi'd part of Europe, are of the last sort, in which third part of Europe 
are comprehended the Christians of Grsecia, Thracia, Servia, Bulgaria, 
Rascia, Wallachia, Moldavia, Russia, Nigra, and so on ; and even the 
Muscovites, who, if the coldness of the country will excuse, might plead 
for a dispensation with the most reason of any." — Hist, of Inf. Bap., part 
ii, ch. ix. 

IP 

Deylingius. — " The Greeks retain the rite of immersion to this day, as 
Jeremiah, the Patriarch of Constantinople, declares." — De Prudent Pas- 
toral, part iii, ch. iii, 2Q. 

BuDDEUS. — " That the Greeks defend immersion is manifest, and has 
been frequently observed by learned men, which Ludolphus informs us is 
the practice of the Ethiopians." — Theol. Dogmat., b. v, c. i, § 5. 

Schubert. — " It is the opinion of the Greeks that the true baptism of 
Ciirist is administered, not by the appUcation of water in any way, but by 
immersion, or by hiding the i)erson to be baptized under water." — Instit. 
Theol. Polem., pars ii, c. iii, 12. 

Russian Catechism. — " This they [the Greek church in Russia] hold 
to be a point necessary, that no part of the child be undipped in the 
water." — In Booth on Bap., vol. ii, p. 414. 

The Bishop of the Cyclades, in 1837, published at Athens a 
hook entitled " The Orthodox Doctrine." Speaking of 
sprinkling he says: 

" Where has the Pope taken the practice from? Where has the West- 
em church seen it adopted, that she declares it to be right? Has she 
learned it from the baptism of the Lord ? Let Jordan bear witness, and 
first proclaim the immersions and the emersions. From the words of om' 
Lord? Hear them aright. Disciple the nations, then baptize them. 
He says not then anoint them, sprinkle them ; but he plainly commis- 
sions his apostles to baptize. The word baptidzo explained, means a ver- 
itable dipping, and in fact 2, perfect dipping. An object is baptized when 
it is completelj^ concealed This is the proper explanation of the word 
baptidzo. Did the Pope, then, learn it from the apostles, or from the 
word and the expression, or from the church in the splendor of her an- 



Mode of Baptism. 421 

tiquity ? Nowhere did such a practice prevail ; nowhere can a Scriptiu'al 
passage be found to afford shelter to the opinions of the Western church." 
—In Bap. Mag., 1849. 

Prof. Stuabt. — " The mode of baptism by immersion, the Oriental 
church has always continued to pkeserve, even down to the 

PRESENT TIME." 

The Western or Latin Catholic Church Historians, A, D. 6lf. 

I now call to the stand seven unimpeachable witnesses — 
Catholics, and standard historians of their church : 

Bishop Bossuet sajs: 

^* We are able to make it appear, by the acts of councils and by ancient 
rituals, that for thirteen hundred years baptism was thus administered (by 
immersion) throughout the whole church, as far as possible." * 

Dr. Brenner says: 

^^ Thirteen hundred years ^di& baptism generally and originally per- 
formed by the immersion of the person under water ; and only in extra- 
ordinary eases was sprinkhng, or aflusion, permitted. These latter 
methods of baptism were called in question and even prohibited." t 

The venerable Bede, born A. D. 672, and died A. D. 735, 
and a church historian, savs : 

" He who is baptized is seen to descend into the font; he is seen to 
ascend out of the water. ' ' 

J. Maldonatus, taught in Paris and Kome, author of com- 
mentaries, died in 1583, and says: 

" For., in Greek, to be baptized is the same as to be submerged." — Com. 
on Matt. XX, 22, Luke xii, 50. 

F. "S. De Mejcraj (1610-1683), a French historian of great 
note, and royal historiographer of France, says: 

" In baptism, in the twelfth century they plunged the candidate in the 
sacred font to show them what operation thai; sacrament hath on the 
-soul." 

Speaking of the eighth and thirteenth centuries, he says: 

" Baptism remained in the Cathohc church the same, and was per- 
formed by dipping or plunging, not by pouring or sprinkling." — Meye- 
ray's Hist, of France. 

*" Stennett ad Bussen, p. 176. — Booth's Pedo. Ex. ch. 4. 
t Hist Exhib. Bap.^ p. 806. 



422 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Brenard Picart (1663-1733), In " The Religious Ceremonies 
of all Nations/' says : 

" Baptism by ablution, or aspersion, was not known in the first cen- 
tury of the church, when immersion was only used ; and it is said it con- 
tinued so till St. Gregory's time." — ^Relig. Ceremo., vol. ii, p. 82. 

A. Bower (1686-1766), author of the "History of the Popes,'' 

says: 

" Baptism by immersion was undoubtedly the Apostolical practice, and 
was never dispensed with by the church except in cases of sickness," etc. 
— Hist, of the Popes, vol iii, p. 110. 

The Anglican or Episcopal Church Historians, A. D. 1534. 

IsTo names stand higher in the Church of England than these, 
no authority more unquestionable. 

Dr. Whitby says : " And this immersion being religiously 
observed by all Christians for thirteen centuries, and approved by 
our church, &c.," referring to the church of England. 

Bingham, in his Christian Antiquities, says : " The ancients 
thought that immersion, or burying under water, did more 
lively represent the death, burial and resurrection of Christ, 
as well as our own death to sin, and arising again into righte- 
ousness." 

In his Origines, says : "As this (dipping) was the original 
apostolical practice, so it continued the universal practice of the 
church for many ages." 

Dr. Wm. Cave (1637-1713), a learned divine, Church Histo- 
rian, and chaplain to Charles II., says : " The party to be 
baptized was wholly immersed or put under water, whereby 
they did more notably and significantly express the three great 
ends and effects of baptism." — Prim. Christ, p. 1, ch. x. 

Again : " As in immersion there are, in a manner, three 
several acts, the putting the person into water, his abiding 
there for a little time, and his rising up again, so by these 
were represented Christ's death, burial and resurrection, and 
in conformity thereunto our dying unto sin, the destruction 
of its power, and our resurrection to a new course of life." 

Br. George Gregory (1754 18Q8),, educated at Edinburgh 



Mode of Baptism. 423 

preached in Liverpool and London, a miscellaneous and his- 
toric writer, says : 

" The initiatory rite of baptism was (in thie first century) publicly per- 
formed by immersing the whole body," etc. — Hist. oftheCh,, vol. i., 
p. 53. 

Dr. A. P. Stanley, born 1815, an eminent English scholar, 
divine and historian, professor of church history at Oxford, 
Dean of Westminister, chaplain to the Prince of Wales, and 
also in ordinary to Queen Victoria, says ; 

'* There can be no question that the original form of baptism .... was 
complete immersion in the deep baptismal waters, and for at least four 
centuries any other form was either unknown or disregarded, unless in 
ease of dangerous illness as an exceptional, almost a monstrous case. To 
this form the Eastern church still rigidly adheres, .... and the Byzan- 
tine Empire absolutely repudiates and ignores any other mode of admin- 
istration as essentially invalid." — Eastern Church, p. 117. 

Again : 

" He came * baptizing' — that is, signifying to those who come to him, as 
he plunged them under the rapid torrent, the forgiveness and forsaking 
of their former sins. It was in itself no new ceremony. Ablutions, in 
the East, have always been more or less a part of religious worship — eas- 
ily performed, and always welcome. Every synagogue, if possible, was 
by the side of a stream or spring ; every mosqe still requires a fountain or 
basin for lustrations in its court." 

Dr. Wm. Wall, M. A., (1645-1727,) vicar of Shoreham, 
Kent, a writer of note, who published a History of Infant 
Baptism of 852, pages explored all the voluminous writings of an- 
tiquity in search of evidence to support infant baptism, says : 

" This (immersion) is so plain and clear by an infinite number of pas- 
sages, that one cannot but pity the weak endeavors of such Pedobaptists 
as would maintain the negative of it ; so we ought to disown and show a 
dislike of tiie profane scoffs which some people give to the Enghsh Anti- 
pedobaptists merely for the use of dipping, when it was, in all probabihty, 
the way by which our blessed Saviour, and for certain, was the most usual 
and ordinary way by which the ancient Christians did receive their bap- 
tism. 'Tis a great want of prudence, as well as of honesty, to refuse to 
grant to an adversary what is certainly true, and may be proved so. It 
creates a jealousy of all the rest that one says. 

"The custom of the Christians is the near succeeding times (to the 
apostles), being more largely and particularly deUvered in books, is known 
to have been generally or ordinarily a total immersion,"-— Hist, of Inf. 

Bap., Pt iL, oh, ix., 1 2, and ifcs Defence, p. 13L 



424 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

" What has been said of this custom of pouring or sprinkling water in 
the ordinary use of baptism, is to be understood only in reference to tho&e 
western parts of Europe, for it is used ordinarily nowhere else. The 
Greek church does still use immersion, and so do all other Christians in 
the world except the Latins. All those nations of Christians that do now 
or formerly did, submit to the authority of the Bishop of Rome do ordina- 
rily baptize theh infants by pouring or sprinkling ; but all other Chris- 
tians in the world, who never owned the Pope's usurped power, do, and 

ever did^ dip their infants in the ordinary use All the 

Christians in Asia, all in Africa, and about one third part of Europe are of 
the last sort." — His. Inf, Bap., Pt. ii., ch. ix., p. 376, ed. 3. 

Referring to the well known and disputed passage in Irenseus, 
he says : 

''Since this is the first mention that we have met with of infants bap- 
tized, it is worth the while to look back and consider how near this man 
was to the apostles' time. Here is the passage which was written about 
the year 167 : 'For he [Christ] came to save all persons by himself, all, I 
mean, who by him are regenerated unto God, infants, and little ones, and 
children, and youths, and elder pversons. Therefore he went through every 
age; for infants, being made an infant, sanctifying infants,' etc." 

The learned Winer says : " Irenseus does not mention it 
[infant baptism] as has been supposed." 

"There is no earher record, that Mr. Wall could discover, than in the 
case of Novatian, about the middle of the third centmy . This man while 
unbaptized, as Eusebius records (Eccles. Hist. L. VI., ch. xliii.), 'fell into 
a dangerous disease, and because he was very like to die, was baptized in 
the bed where he lay {en klinu periohwthenta — i. e., sprinkled over in bed, 
or wdiev poured all oner him, the word signifies) if that might be termed 
baptism.' Novatian recovered ; and by the following circumstance we 
have remarkably preserved the view which the Christian church generally 
took of his baptism : The See of Rome became vacant, A. D. 251. Two 
persons were chosen to succeed, namely, Cornelius, "chosen by the major 
part," and this Novation, in a "schismatical way." Cornelius writes a 
long letter to Fabius, Bishop of Antioch, in which he describes the case of 
Novatian, and says (as Mr. Wall translates it), "that Novatian came not 
Ciinonically to his order of priesthood, much less was he capable of being 
chosen Bishop." Let the reader mark the reason assigned, "For that all 
THE CLERGY, and a GREAT MANY of the laity, were against his being cho- 
sen presbyter ; because it was not lawful (they saidj for any one that had 
been baptized in his bed [Greek, as above, poured over'], as he had been, to 
be admitted to any oflSce of the clergy." ' Wall's Hist. Part ii. ch. ix 2." 
Pengilly's Script. Guide to Baptism, p. 77. 

Now, notice, with the testimony of the learned Winer and 
his translation of the record, do I offset and expose the perver- 
sion of this transaction 1)y my opponent. 



Mode of Baptism. 425 

"France SDoenis to have been the first country in the world where bap- 
tism by affusion was used ordinarily to persons in health and in the pub- 
lic way of administering it. There had been some synods in some 
dioceses that had spoken of affusion without mentioning immersion at all, 
but for an office or liturgy of any church this is, I believe, the first in the 
world that prescribes aspersion absolutely. As for sprinlding, properly 
called, it seems it was at 1645just then beginning and used by very few. 
It must have begun in the disorderly times after 1641, for M. Blake, who 
lived in England in 1644, had never used it nor seen it used. — Hist. Inf. 
Bap., Part ii., ch. ix. 

Speaking of the reign of Queen Elizabeth, from 1558 to 
1603, he says : . 

" It being allowed to weak children (though strong enough to be brought 
to Christ) to be baptized by affusion, many ladies and gentlemen first, and 
then by degrees the common people, would obtain the favor of the priest 
to have theh children pass for weak children, too tender to endure dipping 
in water; especially (as Mr. Walker observes) if some instance really 
were, or were but fancied or framed, of some child taking hurt by it. And 
another thing that had a greater influence than this was, that many of 
our English divines and other people had, during Queen Mary's bloodj^ 
reign (from 1553 to 1558), fled to Germany, Switzerland, etc., and, coming 
back in Queen Elizabeth's time, they brought with them a great love to 
the customs of those Protestant churches wherein they had sojourned ; 
and especially the authority of Calvin and the rules he had established at 
Geneva, had a mighty influence on a great niunber of our people about 
that time. Now, Calvin had not only given his dictate, in his Institutes, 
that the difference is of no moment whether he that is baptized be dipped 
all over, and if so, whether thrice or once, or whether he be only wetted 
with the water poured on him, but he had also drawn up for the use of his 
church at Geneva, (and afterward pubhshed to the world) a form of ad- 
ministering the sacraments where, when he comes to order the act of bap- 
tizing, he words it thus : 'Then the minister of baptism pours water on 
the infant, saying, I baptize thee, etc. There had been, as I said, some 
synods in some dioceses of France that had spoken of affusion without 
mentioning immersion at all, that being the common practice, but for an 
office of liturgy of any church, this is, I believe, the first in the world that 
prescribes affusion absolutely." — Hist. Inf. Bap. 

Again : 

"So (parallel to the rest of their reformations) they (the reformers) re- 
formed the font into a basin. This General Assembly (Westminster) 
(met 1643) could not remember that fonts to be baptized in, had been 
always used by the primitive Christians long before the beginning of 
Popery, and ever since churches were built ; but that sprinkling, for the 
common use of baptizing, was really introduced (in France first, and then 
in the Popish countries) in times.of Popery ; and that accordingly all those 
countries in which tlie usurped power of the Pope is, or has formerly been 



426 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

owned, have left off dipping of children in the font, but that all other 
countries in the world (which had never regarded his authority) do still 
use it ; and that basins, except in case of necessity, were never used by 

Papists or any other Christians whatsoever, till by themselves So, 

parallel to the rest of their reformation, they reformed the font into a 
basm."— Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. ii., p. 368. 

"It is no small evidence that infant baptism was not usually practiced 
in the Greek church during many centuries, because Constantine the 
Great, the son of Helene, who was a zealous Christian, was not baptized 
till he was advanced in years." — Hist. Inf. Bap., Part ii., p. 42, sec. 16. 

Once more : 

"In England there seems to have been some priest so early as the year 
816 that attempted to bring in the use of baptism by affusion in the public 
administration, for Spelman recites a canon of a council in that year : 
• Let the priests know, that when they administer holy baptism, they 
must not pour the water on the head of the infant, but they must always 
be dipped in the font." — Hist. Inf. Bap., vol. i., p. 714. 

Dr. G- Waddington, a man of learning, and author of works 

on Church History and the Eeformation (1835), says : 

"The ceremony of immersion, the oldest form of baptism, was per- 
formed in the name of the three persons of the Trinity." — Ch. Hist., ch. 
ii., sec. 3. 

Bishop B. B. Smith, Bishop of the Episcopal church of 
Kentucky, says: 

" We have only to go back six or eight hundred years, and immei-sion 
was the only mode, except in the case of the few baptized on their beds 

at the real, or supposed approach of death Immersion was not 

only universal six or eight hundred years ago, but it was primitive and 

apostolic The bowl and sprinkling are strictly Genevan in their 

origin — that is, they were introduced by Calvin at Geneva." — Hist. Bap. 

]!!^othing but the utmost disregard for the truth of history 
and for the common respect of all Christian scholars and 
Christian men would induce a man to stand up and put the lie 
in the lips of Bishop Smith and of all these distinguished his- 
torians. 

The Lutheran Church Historians, A. D. 1540. 

I now bring forward a brilliant array of historians, who, be- 
longing to the Lutheran church, if Eld. Ditzler sees fit to 
question their veracity it will be the first time they were evei 
doubted. 



Mode of Baptism. 427 

Dr. J. L. Mosheim (1695-1755), a noted preacher, theologian 
and historian, filled professorships in Denmark and Bruns- 
wick, and was theological professor and chancellor of the Uni- 
versity of Gottingen. He wrote about one hundred and 
sixty works, and says of the first century : 

" The sacrament of baptism was adm.inistered in this century, without 
the public assemblies, in places appointed and prepared for that purpose, 
and was performed by an immersion of the whole body in the baptismal 
fontS'^ 

And of the second century he says : 

' The persons that were to be baptized, after they had repeated the creed, 
confessed and renounced their sins, and particularly the Devil and his 
pompous allurements, were immersed under water and received into Christ's 
kingdom." 

Also of the fourth century he says : 

'' Baptismal fonts were now erected in the porch of each church for the 
more commodious administration of that initiating sacrament. — Maclain's 
Mosheim, vol. i., pp. 46, 69, 121. 

Dr. J. A. W. Meander (1789-1850), the greatest church his- 
torian of his age, and theological professor in the University 
of Berlin for thirty-eight years, says : 

"In respect to the form of baptism, it was, in conformity with the origi- 
nal institution, and the original import of the symbol, performed by m- 
mersion, as a sign of entire baptism into the Holy Spirit, of being entirely 
penetrated by the same."* 

" Baptism was originally administered by immersion, and many of the 
comparisons of Paul allude to this form of administration." 

*' In his letter to Judd he says : 

"As to your question on the original rite of baptism there can be no 
doubt whatever, that in the primitive times the ceremony was performed 
by immersion, to signify a complete immersion into the new principle of 
life divine, which was to be imparted by the MessiaE. When Paul says, 
that through baptism we are buried with Christ and rise again with him, 
he unquestionably alludes to the symbol of dipping into and rising again 
out of the water. The practice of immersion in the first century was, be- 
yond all doubt, prevalent in the whole chm^ch." — Appendix to Judd's 
Review of Stuart. 

Winer, in his lectures, say : " Affusion was at first applied 
only to the sick, but was gradually introduced for others, after 

* Ch. Hist, vol, i., p. 310, also Hist. Plan, and Train., vol, i., p. 222. 



428 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

t±ie seventh centurj', aud in the thirteenth became the prevail- 
ing practice in the West."* 

Van Collen, in his History of Doctrines, says: 

^^Immersion in w'dler was general uutil the thirteenth century; among 
the Latins if was then displaced by sprinkling, but retained by the 
Greeks." t 

Ralph Hospinian (1547-1626), a learned Swiss writer and 
preacher, who pubUshed a History of the Errors of Popery, 
and History of the Jesuits, etc., says: 

*' Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is certain im- 
mersion is signified." — Hist. Sac, L. ii, ch. i, p. 30. 

Dr. J. C. W. Augusti (1772-1841, a distinguished German 
author and theologian, and for rr.any years professor of theol- 
ogy in the University of Breslau and Bonn, saj^s: 

" The word baptism accords to etymology and to usage, and signifies to 
immerse, submerge." — Hinton's Hist. Bap., p. 55, Quinter and Snyder 
Deb., 49. 

Augusti, in his Archaeology, says: 

' ' Immersion in water was general until the thirteenth century among 
the Latins, it was then displaced by sprinkling, but regained by the 
Crreeks." 

J. C. L. Gieseler (1793-1854), a German Church Historian, 
and theological professor in the University of Bonn and Got- 
tingen, sa3's: 

" For the sake of the rich, the rite of sprinkling was introduced." — Ch. 
Hist., Ger. ed., vol. iii. p. 274. 

Dr. John H. Kurtz, born 1809, a professor of theology in 
the Ujiiversity of Dorpt, author of Manual of Sacred History, 
The Bible and Astronomy, Church History, etc., says: 

"Baptism was administered by complete immersion." — See Hist, of 
the Ch., p. 72, 119, 226, 227, Clark's ed. 

"Baptism was performed (third century) by thrice immersing, dming 
which the' formula of baptism was pronounced, sprinkling was only com- 
mon in case of the rich." — Ch. Hist., p. 119. 

* Lect. Christ. Antiq. 

JHist. Doct, vol, ii, p. 303. 

§ Arehse. vol. v, p. 5, vol. vii, p. 229. 



Mode of Baptism. 429 

Prof. J. Bohmer, a Church Ilistorian of note, who died in 
1714, says: 

"The place of administering baptism was not the church, but a river, 
in which people were dipped in the presence of witnesses." — In Ingham'a 
Hand Book, on Bap., p. 141. 

Replication. 

I can but feel encouraged at the manifest progress we are 
making. We rapidly narrow the contested points to their 
last analysis. My opponent has finally fallen squarely back 
upon his last and only remaining line of defense, his tingo, and 
I will name it "Fort Tingo." I stated in one of my first 
speeches, when he was reading the definitions from his lexi- 
cons, and finding so much sprinkle in them, that he was rend- 
ering those meanings which those old lexicographers indicate in 
Latin, by tingo^ by " to sprinkle " which was not its accepted 
meaning when they wrote, not the meaning they intended to 
convey, as every scholar knows. In this respect, Elder Ditzler 

HAS IGNORANTLY, if UOt INTENTIONALLY, MISREPRESENTED EVERY 

LEXICON HE HAS SO QUOTED. The issuc is a plain one, and it 
shall be plainly treated. Forbearance toward this way of deal- 
ing with authors, to the misleading of the people, has ceased 
to be a virtue. 

I repeat my charge, that Eld. Ditzler is either ignorant of 
the use of the Latin verb tingo, by all the old Latin Fathers, 
ignorant of its use by those G-erman lexicographers who give 
it as one of the primary definitions of the Hebrew verb taval 
and of the Greek verbs bapto and baptidzo; ignorant of the 
opinion of all standard scholars; or else, knowing the facts, 
he is attempting to take advantage of my presumed ignorance, 
and the credulity of his followers. 

The simple question now is, in what sense did Tertullian and 
all the earliest Latin Fathers use the verb tingo, when referring to the 
Christian rite f 

I affirm against Dr. Ditzler, that they invariably used it in 
THE sense of to DIP, TO IMMERSE, whcu referring to the baptis- 
mal act. Let us ascertain its signification as we have that of 



430 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

bavtidzohj its usus loquendi, the ultimate source of appeal in the 
early Latin Fathers. 

TertuUian, the earliest of the Latin Fathers, who wrote A. 
D. 150-200, uses tingo and mergo interchangeably y when he un- 
questionably means to dip or immerse, as there can be no 
doubt here, for no standard scholar denies that immersion was 
the sole baptism at this date. 

He says that baptism was administered with great sim- 
plicity. 
"Homo in aquam demissus, et inter pauca verba tinctus." 

"The man being led down into the water, and between a few words 
immersed." 

Tinctus is a participle from the verb tingo. There can be 
no mistaking its meaning here. 

Quoting Eom. vi. 3, in his sermon on the resurrection of 

the body, he says 

"An ignoratis quod quicunque in Christum Jesum tincti sumus, in mor- 
tem ejus tincti sumus. 

Referring to the commission. 

"Et novisisime mandans ut tinguerant in Patrem, et Filium, et Spiri- 
tum sanctum." 

"And last of all, commanding that they should be immersed into the 
Father, and the Son and the Holy Spirit 

Tertullian, citing from a vernacular version, which must have 

been the oldest existing Latin version, quotes the commission, 

Math, xxviii. 19, thus : 

Lex enim tinguendi imposita est, et forma prescripta. Ite (inquit) do- 
cete nationes tinguentes eas," etc., which I translate : "For 
the law of immersion was imposed and the formula prescibed — Go, he 
says, teach the nations, immersing them," etc. 

Referring to John iv. 2, he quotes it thus : 

"Et non tamen tinguebat verum discipuli." 

And yet he did not immerse but his disciples. He quotes 

the apostle Paul thus : 

"Non enim me adtinguendum Christus misit," etc. 

And the Evangelist— 

"Tinguebantur (inquit) confitentes delicta sua." 

"They were immersed confessing their sins." 

That no one may doubt that Tertullian used tingo and mergo 



Mode of Baptism. 431 

interchangeably when speaking of baptism, as we do the verb 
to dip, to immerse as the fancy might strike him or euphony 
dictate, I give a few other passages. 

On the Soldier's crown, ch 3.: 

Dehinc ter mergitur, amplius aliquid respondentes quam Dominus in 
e vangelio determinavit. ' ' 

Then we are three times immersed. Answering somewhat more than 
the Lord prescribed in the Gospel." 

Dr. Halley, of England, says : *'They did immerse for they 
seem as if they could not make too much of holy water. With 
one immersion not content, they observed trine immersion as 
the sacramental emblem of the Trinity.' 

One point is established, immersion was the only action 
known to these fathers, and therefore when they used ^m^o with 
reference to baptism they no more meant to sprinkle or pour 
than they did to stain with some dye. 

Now what is the testimony of the honest scholarship of every 
age as to the meaning of tingo when used by Tertullian and 
the Latin fathers and lexical authorities. 

Dr. Hovey, President of JS'ewton Theological Seminary says 

"Tertullian seems to have used the verb tingo or tinguo as if it were the 
vernacular representative for the Greek word baptidzo. Baptist Quarter- 
ly vol. V p. 77. , 

Mr. Thelwell, B. A, of Plymouth, England, a translator 
of the writings of Tertullian meets with tingo in some of its 
forms forty-nine times, and only once translated it sprinkle. 
Dr. Hovey called his attention to the fact, claiming that in no 
instance does Tertullian use it in the sense of to sprinkle 
Mr. Thelwell like a true Christian scholar, admits his mis- 
take and assures Dr. Hovey that he will correct it. I take 
pleasure in quoting his statement, which is as follows: 

" That a translation executed like my own, amid the constant pressure 
of heavy parochial duties in a large town should contain some inaccura- 
cies in spite of all efforts to the contrary is, I think, only natural ; and the 
only honorable course for a man, if he be shown that he has fallen into 
an error in such a case, is to retract it without reserve. I gladly do so as 
to 'tinctus.'"— 5. Q. Vol. v. 

How striking the contrast between this distinguished scholar 



432 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

au Episcopalian, and that of mj opponent's dogmatic assertions 
respecting the true signification oftingo when used by the Lat- 
in Fathers, and by lexicographers. 

From these facts, you all learn this, that in no one instance 
in all the writings of TertuUian, known to his translators, 
whatever Eld. Ditzler, who never read the writings 
of this author may say to the contrary, does he use 
tingo in any of its forms, in the sense of to sprinkle. 

Prof. Toy, of Greenville Seminary, South Carolina, says : 

"The lexicons frequently give tingere for baptizein. As to this, it is 
agreed among scholars that Tertulhan and other Latin writers use tin- 
gere always in the sense of to immerse." 

Prof Tobey, of Bethel College, Ky., says : 

' 'It seems strange that any one should deny that tingo was used with the 
meaning to dip, by the Latin writers." 

A Congregationalist, Ed. Beecher, says : 

"TertuUian uses ^mp'o interchangeably with mergoov mergito (to im- 
merse). As a corresponding Latin term for baptism, Tertullian used 
intinctio. Christ. Rev. I849 p 241:^ 

M. Stuart says, p 146. He [Tertullian] very often makes 
use of the Latin word tingo in order to express the Greek word 
hajptidzo'^ — which, he says, undoubtedly means to dip, etc. 

This is but some of the proof that might be brought for- 
ward to prove that tingo was used in the second century to 
mean to dip, to immerse. Who denies it ? Who can deny it 
that is at all familiar with their writings ? There is not the 
shadow of evidence that tingo was ever used in this century 
in the sense of to sprinkle, or to pour upon. 

Let us look into the third century. Cyprian, who wrote in 
the third century, quotes Matt, xxviii ; 18-20 : 

" Ite ergo et docete gentes omnes tingmtes eas in nomine Patris, &e." 
" Go ye therefore and teach all nations, immersing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

He quotes it in the same words in his epistle 63. 
He quotes Gal. iii, 27, in these words: 

" Nam si non mentitur apostolus dicens, quot quot in Christo tinxistis 
Christum induistis, utique qui illic in Christo baptizatus est induit Christ- 
turn." 

Which I translate — 

' For if the apostle lies not when he says, 'as many of you as have been 



Mode of Baptism. 433 

immersed into Christ have put on Christ, then, verily, he who has been 
baptized into Christ has put Christ on.'' — Conant. 

Beza (sixteenth century) renders the Greek term bapto, to 
dip, by tingo — tineta sanguine dipped in blood — as our transla- 
tors have it in Eev., xix, 13. 

Stokius renders hapto wherever it occurs in the l^ew Testa- 
ment by tingo and emhapto, by intingo, e. g. 

"Send Lazurus that" — bapte — intingat — he may dip his fin- 
ger in water." Will sprinkle or pour do here ? Luke xvi, 24. 

" To whom I give the sop, baptas, (G.), intingenti (L.), dip- 
ping it." John xiii, 26. Will sprinkle or pour do here ? 

He was clothed with vesture — bebammenon (G.), tineta (L.), 
dipped in blood. 

He says perfect pass, bebammanai is equivalent to tinctus 
sum. 

Embapto he defines by intingo — to dip in, e.g., "He who 
shall dip, embapsas (G.), intinget (L.), his hand with me into 
the dish." — Matt, xxvi, 23, and he quotes corresponding pas- 
sages in Mark and John. 

Jerome in the Latin vulgate as in all his writings, invariably 
uses tingo as the Latin synonym, of the Greek verb hapto — to 
dip. 

I have said there were none of the old ecclesiastical writers 
but used tingo in the sense of to dip, and invariably when they 
refer to Christian baptism, but that it is frequently used in 
this sense in the classics. 

I will give a few of the many examples to be found in my 
boyhood's favorite author, as a specimen of the rest. 

Speaking of the operation of the Cyclops forging armor, to 
which I referred in a former speech, Virgil says : 

** .... alii stridentia tingunt aera lacu;" 
"Others dip the hissing brass in the lake." Can Dr. Ditzler 
work in his dyeing, staining, or sprinkling, or pouring, or mois- 
tening in this passage ? Does not this one passage alone de- 
monstrate that tingo here only means to dip, to plunge ? Have 
you not understood him to make the impression that tingo — 
not intingo for he admits that means primarily to dip in — but 
^27 2 



434 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the simple verb tingo does not primarily mean to dip — ^never 
means to dip ? He has staked his reputation as an honest 
scholar upon it. He has boldly put it forth in his published 
debate, and his readers so understood him. 

But let us look again : 

"Ensem queni Dauno ignipotens deus ipse parent! Fecerat etstygia 

candenteratiiixerat unda." — M. xii. 91. 

"And had dipped the glowing hot sword, which the fire-potent god 
himself had made for the Daunian father, in the stygian wave" — i. e., 
water. 

Will stain, or sprinkle, will dye, color, or moisten, possibly 
give the meaning here ? Will any other word than " to dip," 
'' immerse," or " plunge," give that meaning ? Put Eld. Ditzler 
upon his honest scholarship, and demand an answer. If he 
says yes, no one can respect it, and I will send him to the foot 
of his class. If he answers no, as he must, to answer correctly, 
then he must recede from his position. 

Celsus somewhere speaks of sponges dipped in vinegar, in 
these words : 
"Spongla in acaeto ^mc^a." 

Will Dr. Ditzler claim that that should be translated dyed, 
or sprinkled, stained, or poured upon, tinged, or colored in 
vinegar ? He will not presume to do so, though when he has 
baptism in sight, he can see nothing in tiiigo but dye stuff or 
sprinkling. He has, I fear, studied one subject too long. 

In speaking of the setting of the heavenly bodies, Virgil, 
as all the poets, Greek and Latin do — describes it as an 
immersion in the sea — and their rising, as a rising out of it. 

" Tingere se oceano properant soles hyberni." — Virg. Georg. xi. 481. 
"The winter suns hasten to dip themselves in the ocean." 

Will sprinkle, or pour upon, color, dye, or stain, moisten, or 
bedew, serve any purpose here? And yet tingo^ primarily, 
never means to dip ! 

And I recall this. 

" Ni roseus fessos jam gurgite Phoebus Hibero tinget equos, noctemque 
die labentereducat."— Vh. M. xi. 913. 

"Ruddy Phoebus now dips his tired horses in the western deep, and 
draws the night back, the day gliding away," 



Mode of Baptism. 



435 



Would Dr. Ditzler, if a teacher in the Yanderbilt, instruct 
his class to render this color, dje, or stain his horses in the 
deep? or moisten, sprinkle, or pour them into the western 
deep, in order to support his cause ? Will any present or 
future professor in the Yanderbilt, endorse Eld. Ditzler's 
position on this verb? I could multiply similar examples for 
an hour, but why waste the time ? I have given examples 
enough to satisfy every man who has heard me, or who may 
read what I have said, except my opponent. 

" Tingo^^ Says the learned Grotius, ^'jproperly and generally 
signifies the same as merso — to dip." Is not this sufficiently 
explicit and authoritative ? Will you not regard it as quite 
equal to the assertion of my opponent, who is intent on 
making a show of an argument for sprinkling ? 

Dr. Rice admitted in the Campbell and Rice debate, that tingo 
means to dip, if silence gives consent, for Mr. Campbell claimed 
and Mr. R. did not deny. 

I will now bring forward an authority that my opponent is 
delighted with, and whose opinions, and even inferences, he 
never questions, viz: 

Dr. Jacob Ditzler, of the Lexington Conference, Ky. In trans- 
lating a line or two from Ovid, [which by the way he mis- 
translates] he correctly renders ("6z5 ftumine corpus tingat") 
"twice she dips her body in the stream," [see D. and Wilkes' 
debate p. 430.] Tingatie present tense from, tingo and why 
don't he render tingo here by stain, color, sprinkle or pour? 
Why dip here, if dip is not its primary meaning — if it never 
means dip ! 

Dr. Ed. Beecher, author of '^Import of Baptism says : 

"Tingo beyond all doubt, means to immerse. In this sense Facciolatus 
and Forcillinus, in their Totius Latinitatis lexicon give baptidzo as its 
synonym, and again with more emphasis — 

"But to prove that it means to immerse is needless; no one can deny it." 
Dr. Beecher was mistaken — there is one man on this con- 
tinent who will presume to do so, and I am compelled to say, 
that man is Eld. Ditzler. I will not say that he intentionally 
misrepresents this matter, but that he has most egregiously 
done so in order to support his absurd position that baptidzo 



43 6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

primarily means to sprinkle, and that all the oldest versions 
translated it by verbs that mean to sprinkle. He says this in 
defiance of the united testimony of all antiquity and of all 
scholars. Thus, therefore, we are justified in concluding that 
whenever lexicographers give tingo and intingo as the primary 
meaning of the Hebrew verb taval or of hapto or baptidzo, they 
intend to denote to dip, to dip in — and to represent them as 
defining it by to sprinkle is to manifestly misrepresent them. 

Smith's English Latin Dictionary, Harper & Bros., 1871, 
gives as the Latin synonyms of our English word to dip, mer^o, 
and tingo, dip (subs.) immersion. 

Now give to dip, to immerse, as the proper definition to tingo 
— wherever he has quoted a lexicon giving this as the defini- 
tion of haptidzo or taval, and you see that they tell us that "to 
dip," "to immerse," is the proper signification of these verbs — 
his Schindler, and Leigh, and Stokius, and Castell, " though 
■equal to twenty in one," all with one voice say "to dip," "to im- 
merse" is the priynarg s^udproper meaning — "to sprinkle," never. 
l..e figurative meanings — "to moisten," "to wet," do not mean 
"to sprinkle," and therefore do his cause no good. 

Thus we see his last fort is carried, his last shadow of defence 
taken from him by the concurrent testimony of all scholars. 

That tingo is used in the sense of "to dye," "to color," I have 
admitted and no one denies, but I do afiirm that where used 
with reference to the act of Christian baptism, or as a defini- 
tion of bapto or haptidzo, it invariably denotes immersion. 

You heard him quote Calvin as one of the Latin Fathers ! 
Well he wrote in Latin, and was the father of Presbyterian- 
ism, but Calvin does not use tingo anywhere in the sense of "to 
sprinkle," though Eld. Ditzler strives to make the impression 
upon you that he does — or why does he quote from Calvin at 
all? Calvin uses it in the sense of baptism merely, and he i> 
such a good witness for us. I will read the whole sen- 
tence in which tingo occurs, and you will perceive he first 
states his opinion that it, the act, is indifferent — and then states 
'dfact, that bears directly upon this question. I have him here 
in Latin, but will give the translation, published by the Pres- 
byterian Board, Philadelphia : " Whether the person who is 



Mode of Baptism. 437 

baptized ^Hingitur'^ be wholly immersed, mcrgitur^ and whether 
thrice or once, or whether water be only poured on him, is of 
no importance [who told him so — when Christ commanded 
him to be immersed ?] Churches ought to be left at liberty 
in this respect j_why not then in every thing else that Christ 
commanded as well ?] to act according to the diflercince of 
countries [but Christ made no exceptions and what right have 
we?] The very word baptidzo, however, signifies to im- 
merse; AND IT is certain THAT IMMERSION WAS THE PRACTICE 
OF THE ANCIENT CHURCH." 

■ 

This ought to be conclusive evidence with all Presbyterians 
that immersion was the act which Christ commanded for 
baptism. 

For the testimony of the versions, ancient and modern, I 
refer all to what I submit, in the Appendix that we have mu- 
tually agreed to annex at the close of this proposition. 

I have something more to say touching Liddell & Scott's 
Greek Lexicon, which my opponent has so grossly misrepre- 
sented, — {_Time out. 



43^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S SEVENTEENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — Dr. Graves once more brings up 
tifigo. We presumed he was satisfied with it. He says it 
is "just like bapto." Grant it, then, and is it not ruinous to 
his cause. Let us have, then, 

1. The lexicons on iingo — the standards. 

Leverett's Freund — best. " Tingo, to wet, moisten ; tengo, 
brecho, hugraino, to moisten, to bedew." Then come derived 
meanings, "bathe, wash, dip in, plunge, immerse, color, stain, 
tinge, tint." That is exactly the order, confirming all my 
rules on philology. His is the first of critical Latin lexicons. 

Take your's I see there, Andrews, " Tingo, to wet, moisten, 

(B) to soak or color, to dye, color, tinge." 

Ajlnswoeth.— " To dye, color, stain. 2 To sprinkle, to imbrue. 3. 
Wash. 4. Paint." 

Anthon.—" Moisten, wet." 
White. — "Moisten, wet." 

2. Let us give a few occurrences of tingo in Latin contem- 
porary with apostolic times or thereabouts. " By chance his 
hounds, led by the blood-stained track {tincta).^^ The ground 
is sprinkled, stained, with the wounded stag as it ruos. Any 
dip here ? "Wet, {tingei^e) the body {aqua aspersa) with sprin- 
kled water." Any dip there? He tells the mode of tingoing 
it, aspersa, by sprinkling the water. Yet you say tingo is the 
same as bapto. I believe it myself. We could multiply exam- 
ples. See our citations of it Lou. Deb., pp. 429, 430. 

3. That you may see how the Fathers used it, we quote — 

1. CaXiVIN. — " That it is of no importance whether all who are baptized 
(tingatQ Siie immersed (mergantur), and that thrice or once, or water 
is only poured on them." Inst. Calvin, lib. iv. ch. xv., sec. 19.) 

2. Archbishop Sebastian, of Mentz — " Then let the priest take the child 
in his left arm, and holding him over the font, let him, with his right 
hand, three several times take water out of the font and pour it on the 
child's head (itaquod aquatingat caput et scapulas), so that the water ma^^ 
wet ( tingat) its head and shoulders." (Wall 577.) 



Mode of Baptism. 439 

3. Jerome interchanges coiispergo, sprinkle, and tiiigo. 

Here you see that both Calvin and the Catholic Archbishop 
use '' pour water on" as the mode by which tingo is effected. 
We could multiply examples. The above three are surely 
representative. Where Schindler uses tingo it is often where 
tears and dew fall on the object, and Furst uses tingo in his 
Latin, and defining the same word in German in the same 
way, uses benetzon, moisten. Why do not our opponents look 
at these facts, and guard against such repeated blunders? 

Again we call up some Versions. 

III. — Jerome, Itala, ^THiopia 

Vulgate and Itala. 1. Transfer baptidzo. 2. Translate 
tabhal baptidzo. 2. Kings v. 14, lavo — wash, besprinkle. 

3. Translate bapto^ aspergo, {behammenos, aspersa), Eev. xix. 
13, that is sprinkle. 

4. Tzeva, baptized by, (1) Conspergatur, (2) Infunderis, sprin- 
kle, besprinkle. 

IV. — ^THIOPIC. 

1. It has a word for immerse, maab, '• overflow, immerse." 
It is never used for baptism. 

2. Bapto is rendered sprinkle. Rev. xix. 13 

3. Katharismos, purification, is rendered by baptism. John 
iii. 25. 

4. Renders baptidzo by tamank, to baptize. 
Castell. — " Tamank, to be baptized, to baptize." 

4. Renders baptidzo by mo, mio, " water." It is the same 
root with moh, " sprinkled with water, pour rain, water, juice, 
liquid, water." — Castell. 

V. — EGYPTIAN". Same as the above. 

VI. — Coptic. Third century. 

1. Bapto, sprinkle. Rev. xix. 13. 

2. Baptidzo by tamaka. See Ethiopic above. 

3. Baptidzo by tamash, applied to affusion, tears. Psalm vi. 6. 
VII. — Egyptian. Third century. 

1. Baptidzo rendered oms — water, wash, wet, sprinkle, same 
root as amad. 

VIII. — Basmuric. Third century. 

1. bapto, sprinkle. 

2. Transfers baptidzo. 



440 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

IX. — Sahidic. 1. JBapto, sprinkle. 2. Transfers baptidzo. 
X. — Persic. 1. Giitha is immerse, but never baptize. 

2. Shusta shustidan, wash, baptize, never immerse or dip. 

3. Suhar, shue, " give a bath or administer a washing, {.i e. 
pour the water for it,) to fall in drops of water, to distill, to 
baptize." 

5. It rendei^ purifying, John iii. 25,. baptism. 

6. Baptidzo is rendered by a word used in Exodus ii. 5, 
where the daughter of Pharaoh went to wash epi at the river; 
and Gen. xviii. 4, with " a little water; " John xiii. 10, washed, 
i. e., feet. All did not plunge into the same water their feet^ 
it defiled by touch of some needing purification. 

XI.— Luther, 1522. 

1. Bapto, sprinkle, besprengt. Rev. xix. 13. 

2. Baptidzo^ waschen. Mark vii. 4 ; Luke xi. 38, etc. 

3. Baptidzo, taufen, baptize, when he and the Germans 
always baptized by affusion, used it, therefore^ exactly as we 
do baptize, as if transferring baptidzo. 

XII. — Lusitanian. 

1. Bapto, salpacado, sprinkle. Rev. xix. 13. 

2. Baptidzo, wash. Mark vii. 4,. etc. 

3. Baptidzo transferred. 

XLII. and lY. — Italian and French. Wash ^ transfer, where 
the ordinance occurs as Christian baptism. 

SUMMARY ON VERSIONS. 

1. For the first fifteen hundred years after Christ no version 
rendered baptidzo dip or immerse. 

2. ^NTearly all — all the best — render bapto by sprinkle. 

3. Wherever they render baptize by a word of any mode^ 
by modal words, in every case it is a word of affusion. 

4. All the earliest and best, save Itala and Vulgate, trans- 
late baptidzo by words meaning to sprinkle — these two, Itala 
and Vulgate, transfer, but render Chaldee of baptize by 
sprinkle, as well as bapto.. 

XV. — Versions. 

L T li.e two oldest manuscript Bibles in the world ^ Sin?itic and 



Mode of Baptism. 441 

Yatican, about A. D. 325, translated haptisontai by rantisonfai, 
sprinkle themselves for baptize themselves. Mark vii.4. The 
copyists, learned Greeks, knew it was by sprinkling, hence 
translate it instead of transferring, as it was Jewish, traditional 
baptism, and always by sprinkling. Baptidzo applies to many 
modes. 

2. Seven others, ancient copies, have it sprinkle. 

3. Euthymus, a learned Greek of the 4th century, has it the 
same. Dr. Graves asked why it was translated sprinkle, rantidzo, 
if baptidzo meant sprinkle ? Baptidzo means to sprinkle, and 
applies to sprinklings, but like so many words we have seen 
and one, tingo, we just saw, it applies to other processes also, 
is a far more extended word in meaning than rantidzo ; hence 
it is reduced by these translators to one definite mode there. 
They would not allow any substitute for baptidzo in Greek, as 
the word for baptism is a Christian rite. 

And Furst is a now wild infidel of Germany. What was 
their favorite Gesenius, but half infidel, half transcendentalist 
and rationalist? Where is the proof of Furst being infidel? 
He has done more for philology and for the better study of the 
Bible in Hebrew than any man since Buxtorfi:' and Castell, 
two hundred years ago. 

But the Doctor thinks they have big pools in the Syriac 
church somewhere, and that points to immersion. Now, 1, 
We adduce the proof of all we introduce as argument. Have you 
noticed that? The Doctor tells you this and that, and nine 
eases out of ten we refute it whenever he introduces his proof or 
it is at hand. All our authorities are in hand. But we 
showed 

1. That the Syriac lexicons were all against him, and the 
application of his big pool. 

2. All the versions are against it. Catafago, like Castell 
(must I repeat it the tw^entieth time), uses amad, — spells it 
in English just that way — whose only definition is "the being 
wet with rain." That is secular, daily use. So Castell defines 
it, having natives of the East to help him, and two native 
lexicons of the ninth and tenth centuries as a foundation, 
both in Syriac while it was a living language. 



442 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. A big pool twelve or eighteen hundred years after Christ 
is late in the day to tell what was ordained in the Commis- 
sion. 

4. We saw that the Syriac Council, discussing ama<i as to the 
proper person of the verb, incidentally twice use sprinkle. 
We quoted it once; put it in evidence. 

5. We saw that Syriac writers of the third and fourth 
centuries call shedding tears, baptizing, shedding blood, bap- 
tizing. 

6. We saw that they held that John caught some of the 
water that flowed down Christ's body when he was baptized, 
and it was divided out among the twelve apostles for baptiz- 
ing. This showed (1) that they believed the apostles baptized 
by affusion. (2) That Christ was so baptized. We have the 
Syriac works for all this. It is copied in the Louisville De- 
bate. 

7. Better than all, the version made in the apostles' age 
sustains it all, and shows that they used their Syriac words 
for baptize where the clearest cases of sprinkling and pouring 
are named, falling of tears and rain on objects, while they 
translate tahhal, Hebrew for baptize, by sprinkle. They trans- 
lated sprinkle, baptize, and baptize, sprinkle. Surely that 
shows what they believed. 

We have adduced all the proof needed on the age of the 
versions of the Peshito. We quote one sentence from an 
ancient Syriac writer, Bibliotheca Orientalis Assemani, torn, 
iii, p. 212. "But the rest of the Old Testament (books) and 
oftheN'ew Testament were translated with great pains and 
accuracy by Thaddeus and the other apostles." There is 
no shadow of proof against this. Were we disposed, and were 
it necessary to urge it, we feel perfectly able to vindicate this 
as the correct view. All agree it is the best, the purest, the 
oldest, the most literal of all versions of the Bible extant. 
How came it to be so unless by apostolic aid? 

He reads those old, unreliable products of Barnabas, 
put in the middle of the second century by all the best histo- 
rians now, and admitted to be in great doubt as to when and 
by who:;i -litten. They amount to nothing, and say not a 



Mode of Baptism. 443 

word about immersion. The first Father that names " mer- 
sion " is Tertullian — trine immersion — to absorb the grace of 
God fully out of the water. He admits perfusion, sprinkling, 
as repeatedly we have shown. 

But Novatian's baptism is up. But you surely know it is 
most falsely reported in immersion books. It does not say, as 
they quote it, "if that can be termed baptism." It reads: "If 
indeed {ei ge chrae), it be proper (or becoming) (legein) to say 
that such a person (ton toionton) (masculine gender, referring 
to the man himself — one as wicked, possessed as held they 
him to be, with the devil — so it says) could receive it" — that 
is baptism. Deny that reading if you dare, and say ton toionton 
refers to baptism as its antecedent. It declares of baptism, he 
did receive it (elaben). If the doubt was on the mode, as he 
lived, became a bishop, headed a sect claimed by Baptist 
successionists as a Baptist, why did not they immerse him? 
The very fact that he never was immersed, nor the mode 
questioned, is proof enougli that all the church admitted 
sprinkling as baptism, superstitious as some were becoming, 
not as to mode, but the quantity of water used. And he 
thinks they poured it all over him in bed, where he was sick, 
to come as near immersion as possible, as he was too low to 
undergo immersion ! Isn't that rich ? Just think of it, hav- 
ing a deluge of water on a man in bed, who is too delicate, too 
far gone to be put in a trough of water! Would not the wet 
clothes kill him at once? Alas for dip! 

Remembering that Origen, Basil, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
A. D. 190, all vindicate pouring and sprinkling as baptism, as 
Greek Fathers, then a number of others we gave, and Ter- 
tullian as a Latin, as also Cyprian, 251, Jerome, the learned 
translator of the Vulgate, fourth century, commenting on 
Ezekiel xxxvi, 25 : " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon 
you," says, " So that upon those who believe and are converted 
from error, I might pour out the clean water of baptism." In 
a word, Tertullian quotes where the apostles' feet were 
washed by Christ, Cyprian, Jerome, Origen, and Latin and 
Greek Fathers too numerous to be quoted now, quote this 
VL^rse, and Isaiah xliv, 3, "Pour water on him that is thirsty," 



4'44 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

as proofs that Messiah would baptize. They always appeal 
to such verses for their authority to baptize. Would it not be 
strange for learned men to quote Num. xix, 13, ''Water of 
sprinkling;" Ezek. xxxvi, 25, "Sprinkle clean water upon 
you," to prove the right and authority to immerse? Yet, the 
Fathers of the first four centuries do this constantly. Not 
only so, but Clemens Alexandrinus, A. D. 190, calls "sprink- 
ling one's body with water" the likeness of Mosaic baptism. 
We read it as it is in a former speech, [12th] 

He thinks I made a mistake about Tertullian. No, no; no 
mistake yet. In all these matters we are carefal. We render 
the Latin of the writers just as they intended. Some use their 
words a little differently from others. It requires much famil- 
iarity with the old Fathers of the first few centuries to know 
just what they did mean, and a mere reference to a lexicon of 
classic Latin is liable to deceive, since they do not define the 
monkish Latin of late ages at all. Some few come down to 
Augustine, fourth century, on a few words. 

Once more we quote the lexicons on the Hebrew word for 
baptize, viz: iabhal^ and give the root force of the word. 

Tabhal — baptize — haptidzo. 

1. Tabhal is translated by baptidzo. LXX. 2 K. v. 14. 

2. Tabhal was and is used by Jews for proselyte baptism. 

3. Tabhal is rendered by the Seventy by bapto generally, 
often. 

4. The Targums translate rachats, wash, pour, by tabhal at 
times. 

5. Tabhal is the oldest occurrence of baptize by 1000 years. 

L Lexicons on tabhal^ tebhal, 

1. Schindler. tabhal, tinxit, intinxit immersit, moisten, dip, 
immerse ita lavit, ut res non mundetur, sed tantum attingat 
humorem vel tota, vel ex parte, baptizavit. Thus to wash, as 
the object is not purified, but merely touches the moisture in 
whole or in part, is to baptize. 

2. Stokius : tinxit. intinxit imnaersit, ut attingat, humorem 
ex toto, aut saltem, ex parte, moisten, dip, etc., as it merely 
touches the liqid in whole or in part. 



Mode of Baptism. ^ 445 

3. Leigh's ^'Crit. Sac:" tinxit, int. immersit, ita lavit, ut res 
uoii muncletnr, sed tantum attingat humorem vel toto, vel ex 
parte, baptizavit. Moisten, dip, immerse ; thus to wash, as 
the object is not purified, but merely touches the liquid in 
whole or in part, is to baptize. 

4. Castell, equivalent to nineteen lexicographers, nay twenty 
as Kimchi, w^hom Geseniu?, the favorite immersion lexicogra- 
pher on Hebrews, called the classic lexicographer, says 
the same, centuries ago said it. Castell defines as the 
rest, only with more pains and fullness, moisten, dip, 
immerse. But he lets us know what the dip implies, intinxit 
through moistening, hence " dips or dabble " he gives as its 
English, the dipping (intinctio) merely touches the object to 
the liquid in part or in whole, (con and tan^o, to touch.) He 
shows that in later times, (posterior,) it was (among Rabbins,) 
" to immerse, but not always." 

5. BuxtorflT, the elder one, tells us likewise it is merely 
" sprinkled by the water," or touched. He uses a word that 
means to touch and sprinkle both, (contingatur ob aqua.) 

6. FuRSTiANUS. — " Regare, tingere, perfundere, immergere, moisten, 
wet, sprinkle, immerse. 

Later Lex. Ger.,bySam.e. — Tomioisten, wet, to sprinkle; regare, tingere, 
therefore, to dip, to immerse. The fundamental signification of the stem 
SaHs, to moisten, besprinkle." 

Let us now test the root meaning of this word. Bal is its 

root syllable. Now, whatever meaning constantly reappears 

in the root, is its primary meaning. 

THE ROOT OF TABHAL. 

The root suggested by G-esenius, is tab. His Thesaurus 

(Heb. Lois. 1835-6, and Heb. Lex. by Robinson) give tab as 

the root. 

Gesenius.— " The primary syllable, tab^ depth, immersion. Compare 
Goth, diup^ Eng. deep, Ger. tie/] also Goth, daufen^ Ger. taufen^ Eng. dip, 
Gr. dupto and softened deuo.^'' 

Again : 

^''Tamal^ prim, immerse." 

Rabbi Wise endorses Gesenius, who puts it " dip wholly or 

partly," he says, which spoils all for them. 



446 The Great- Carrollton Debate. 

1. Geseuius, Essay on Helps to Jb^hilology in Bib. Repos., 
1&33. G. M. Stuart, Arabic, 1st of all, etc. Why all this 
Aryan (no Semitic) helps ? 

2. Where in the Bible, does tabhal express depth, or a deep 
thorough immersion ? iTo where. 

3. He puts tab — deuo — sprinkle, moisten. How of that ? 

4. Where can he find tab in any Semitic tongue expressing 
depth or immerison? lN"ot once. 

Let us examine a few words with tab as root. 

1. '^Natab, Stillavit gutta, shed drops." Lexicons generally. 

2. " Shatab, Ethiopic. Dlstillavit gutta.^^ Same as the other. 

3. Raiab. hudrainin madefaceri^ (Geseuius, ) to wet, moistened with rain 
(Jobxxiv. 8), also witti juice." 

4. ^'Nataph, root, tab; To drop, fall in drops, distill, Arab., 

watering, irrigating. (Gesenius.) 
5. '■'■Tiuph, root, tsaph — i. e. tab. To pour, to pour out, irrigate." 
6. ''^Shataph, root, tab. To gush or pour out." (Gesenius 

and others.) 

7. "TsaS — i. e, tab. Arabic, isaba. (Freyta, Gasenius, etc.) To pour, pour 
out (fudit, effudit.") 

Now what becomes of Gesenius' suggested root ? It 
crushes him. 

Bal is the true root of tabhal^ as Furst shows. 

1. We have seen that the universal law of language is, to 

increase in strength, words. 

2. That the process is from sprinkle, to dip, etc. 

3. Bal is clearly the root of tabhal. 
Then [1] bal la, Hebrew and Arabic. 

Freytag. — "To moisten, and especially to make wet by sprinkling or 
light affusion of liquids." 

2. Gesenius. — "To moisten, make wet by aflusion of liquid, sprinkle." 

3. Schindler.— "Sprinkle." 

4. Leigh. — "Sprinkle." 

5. Castell. — Same as Freytag. 

(2) Phaphal, root, bal, Gesenius. Buxtorff, Ges., Castell, all 
"sprinkle" (conspersit). 



Mode of Baptism. 447 

(3) Balal, the root is bal. "Sprinkle." See my first speech. 

(4) Naphal, bal is the root. Terginus, " effundo." Castell, 
"pour out." 

(5) Shaphal, bal, the root. "To flow, to pour. I'urst, Ar., 
"to rain, &c," 

(6) Abal, bal is the root. "Rain." Ar., moisten." 

(7) Bal. Rain. 

(8) Bid, ball the root. "To flow, stream forth copiously, to 
moisten." 

(9) ' Mabal, Arabic, ma-bal-a. " To flow copiously, to moisten. 

(10) Ya bal, bal the root. "To flow, to stream. (Furst.) 

(11) Wa-bal. "To pour rain, to rain copiously, etc." 

(12) Ya-baL "To flow, stream, to pour, drop down, 
moisten." (Furst.) 

Here now, after examining the only two syllables, the only 
two possible roots, both destroy the immersion theory. It 
demonstrates further the absolute truth of what I had the sat- 
isfaction of discovering in Greek, Arabic and Syriac, that 
sprinkle was the primary meaning of each of those words for 
baptize. What Furst was doing in Hebrew across the waters, 
I had the honor of doing in Syriac, Greek and Arabic, yes, on 
an infinitely broader basis than he, we had demonstrated that the 
whole philology of language demonstrated this great truth, 
that the process in all languages w^as trom sprinkle to dip, 
overwhelm, immerse, never reversing the law. Wherever the 
bap is, says A. Campbell, there is the dip. Bap is the root 
syllable, the stem word in all the forms of bapto and baytidzo. 
So balls, the root syllable, stem, of all these twelve words in 
Hebrew, all being as nearly related to baptize, [tabhaV) as 
bapto, baptistcBs, baphoe, bapiisma, baptismos, etc., are to baptidzo 
in Greek. Hence you see afl'usion, moistening by dew, drops 
of water, etc., run through all those words of the same root. 
Hence sprinkle is the primary meaning of baptize in Hebrew 
as well as Greek. 

But once more the Doctor shrinks under the fearful weight 
of Furst. Why does he not attack Buxtortf, Castell, Stokius, 
Schindler, Kimchi, Leigh— all these who essentially assert 



448 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the same — that tahJial even when it is to dip^ it "merely touches 
the object to the liquid?'' Is not that as damaging as Furstt 
The truth is, this great German occupies such a dazzling 
height on the supernal throne of elevated scholarship and 
criticism — has ascended such a magnificent pyramid of his 
own building — has earned such a glorious fame, that the 
height thereof so bedazzles our opponent in his groveling 
depths below, that his eyes are holden — bedimmed with the 
fog and mists of error, and walled so, that he can never real- 
ize the position of independence and learning to which the 
greatest philologist of this century arose. 

After the dose we administered to Dr. Graves in the hist 
three speeches, we cannot expect him to be in the sweetest 
temper and coolest frame of mind. It makes a chronic 
patient wonderfully sick to dose him so strongly. But it is 
the only remedy for a long seated disease, sometimes. So 
bear up, Doctor, though we probe deeply, heal closely, salt 
and pepper profusely and bleed you as closely as the old son 
of Hippocrates did in Gil Bias. 

My lectures over the Southwest hurt. My "big books" 
hurt. Stokius hurts. All hurts. Syriac hurts. Hebrew 
hurts. Yes, and they will hurt on. We will ply the lash on 
error till we whip it to its den. 

He puts it mildly indeed that now he makes me say that A. 
Campbell, Dr. Graves, etc., did not give all that Schleusner 
said. That would be silly. What I did say was that, Dr. 
Graves, both in his lexical citations, July 4, 1868, and during 
this debate, left out the very words and texts that I omitted, with 
this difference: I gave the signs of omission. My opponent, 
and all of us, know the omitted words had nothing to do with 
the real meaning of Schleusner. I gave every word of his 
definitions. This he dare not deny. But Dr. Graves omits : 
1. These very words that I omit. 2. He omits the explana- 
tion Schleusner gave, that baptidzo does not occur in the jSTew 
Testament in the sense of dip, immerse, plunge, but in the 
sense of wash, cleanse, purify, and this by any of the modes 
— pouring, sprinkling, immersing. 

3. Dr. Graves omits the word " pour forth " in Schleusner. 



Mode of Baptism. 449 

How now does he excuse himself? He says: "We only 
proposed to give what he [8.] declares to be the primary 
and proper definition of baptidzo." Indeed ! That is not the 
case. In the same chapter or article, you use these words : 
" Observe that not one of these Pedobaptist authors and lexi- 
cographers gives sprinkle or pour as a definition of baptidzo." 
In last week's paper, '' The Baptist,'^ by Dr. Graves, he asserts : 
" Thirty-two Greek lexicons define baptidzo, to dip, plunge, or 
immerse, and not one of them defines it to pour or to sprin- 
kle." E'ow, we have seen that all the great standards give 
sprinkle or pour, or both, save the abridgments of Stephanus, 
born under immersion rule. Yet he never gives dip as a 
meaning at all. He never gives immerse as a Bible meaning. 
He gives wash, cleanse — abluo, lavo — as its only Kew Testa- 
ment meanings. But Passow, Suicer, Stokius, Schleusner, 
Schneider, Host and Palm — txoenty-jwe authorities define it sprin- 
kle or pour, or both. Schneider, a great German , 1819, gives its 
general meanings as equivalent to brecho — sprinkle, shed forth. 
Passow gives its genercd meaning as "sprinkle upon, pour 
upon." Leigh, its primary, as wash — or any mode whatever. 
Rost and Palm give — " generally to sprinkle upon, pour upon." 

Stokius tells us that though in his estimation it meant dip, 
immerse, yet by a metalepsis, it come to mean " to wash, to 
cleanse, because anything is accustomed to be dipped or im- 
mersed in water, that it may be washed or cleansed, although, 
also, the washing can, and generally is, effected by sprinkling- 
THE WATER. Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. 38. Hence it is transferred 
to the sacrament of baptism.^' Then follow a lot of texts in 
Matthew, Luke, etc. N'ow look at his facts. Because it 
came to mean to ivash, then wash by sprinkling, and because 
it was " accustomed to be done by sprinkling the water — adsper- 
gendo aquam. Hence it is transferred to the sacrament of bap- 
tism, and he cites a host of texts in the gospels for that use of 
it., Beza argues the same way exactly. So does Witsius, 
Terretinus, Yossius and Suicer. Yet all of them hold to 
affusion. Beza held that John "poured" the water on them. 
Witsius, Terretinus, etc., held that Acts xi. 41, and in the 
baptism of Cornelius, Paul, Lydia, the Jailor — all was by 
28 



450 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

affusion. So they declare, as we quoted them, already. Yet 
thev aro^ued exactly as Stokius and Schleusner do. [See the 
full quotations of Stokins and Schleusner in my first speech, 
28, 29, 30]. Then Stokius tells us of its metaphorical appli- 
cation. "Metaphorically, it designates the pouring out of 
the Holy Spirit upon the apostles and other believers ^ * =** 
since anciently the water was copiously poured upon those bap- 
tized, or they were immerged deep in the water,'" etc. Here 
its metaphorical use is where it applies to the Spirit, that based 
on its literal use — pouring water copiously on those baptized. 
Xow, where is the metaphorical about sprinkling and pouririq 
water on people? Where is the metaphor? It is simply a 
most daring effort to befog your minds and suppress the clear 
record of facts. What does he offer to overcome this? He 
cites, under the noun, a word never used bv Christ of this 
ordinance ordained in the commission — never used in apos- 
tolic preaching, a single time as to the ordinance of Christian 
baptism — a later word than hapti.dzo by five hundred years and 
more: and Stokius, definins: it. is far less full here, as he had 
just defined the older and far more important word — hoptidzo 
— the only word used by him for his ordinance of baptism — 
he then uses the words quoted by Dr. Graves; and not a text cited 
in the Bible in that connection to show it was a Xew Testament 
use — the immerse. On the contrarv, he tells us when it came 
to mean " to be washed or cleansed,"' hence it was transferred 
to designate the first sacrament of the Xew Testament. 

He then tells us they call it " mzYfa^b, "'" namely baptism; 
which they call the initiation, in which those to be baptized 
were formerlv immersed into water, thous^h at this time the 
water is only sprinkled tipon them etc,"' I give Dr. Graves' 
rendering. See his last speech, as well as loth. Xow here 
when thev immersed " formerlv" who does not see that he 
alludes to the ages after the apostles? It was in the days when 
they used the term '"^initiate/' Who reads of 'initiation' in the 
Xew Testament baptism? Under baptidzo, Christ and the 
apostles' OXLT word in all cases of baptizing or commanding or 
practicing it, we see S. says it was ''by sprinkling the water," 
because they poured it on copiously, from that use of it, it came 



Mode of Baptism. 4:;! 

to be applied to the Spirit desceDcling on the people, ^ow 
what fearful suppressions, what torture to record and truth is 
resorted to by controversialists to get rid of thoee damaging 
facts? Here S. tells nothing of'Hhey call it initiation" and all 
that jargon of the dark age immersionists. 

Every man can see that Dr. Graves is simply stung to fury 
when he tries to ^x on me the idea suppressing(?) He wants 
to joke really. 

And now comes again Schleusner. We exposed Dr. Graves 
enough in our last two speeches or three, God knows. Indeed 
we ]3ity him. Our friends know it. It hurts him so badly 
we hate to do it. But duty compels. 

Dr. Graves re-asserts that I do not rightly interpret Schleus- 
ner. Now it is only a question in this case of understanding 
an author. Dr. Wilkes and I, both took the same view so far 
as this part omitted by him, by me, by A. Campbell, Ingham 
and Dr. Graves is concerned. I was the first who ever gave 
these lexicons in full to the reading world on this question. 
My full exposure of Dr. Graves' view, is in speech 15th., and 
need not be repeated. I add this, in view of Dr. Graves' 
additional blunders. Dr. Graves says : tabha [immerse] is used 
in the two [Psalms Ixviii. 5, ix. 6.] referred to in the sense of 
to destroy by overfioiving ; and Schleusner declares that in this 
sense, i. e. 'to drown, to perish by the submersion,' it is never 
used in the iN'ew Testament. 

He is endorsed by Drs. Yarden, Talbert, Breaker, and Boyce 
"one of the ripest scholars of this age." Boyce writes a letter 
endorsing Dr. Graves's position. All right. ]^ow for the form. 

Here is the real test of accuracy^ judgment and criticism. I 
ask no help but that of Truth. But if I fail, Drs. Horn, Prit- 
chett. Prof. ITewman, Elder Cox, will come to my aid — Bros. 
Bailey and McFarland will not desert, while I've tried Dr. M. 
R. Jones before. 

My friends, to appreciate the trap Dr. Graves has fallen in, 
the snare he is caught in, you must know that the Psalms are 
chaptered and versed differently in Hebrew to what they are in 
English. Schleusner refers to Psalms Ixviii. 6, and ix. 5, as 



45- The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the places where in Symmachus an unknown translator trans- 
lates tabha by baptidzo, I have all these Versions. Is'ow it so 
happens that in Ps. ix. 6, James' version,'' destructions'' are namea 
as coming on people. Hence Dr. Graves has been led to look at 
that as the tabha, and renders it "to destroy by overflowing.'^ 
" Hence they perish by submersion." What are the facts? 

1. Dr. Graves and his aids blunder into the ditch exactlv as 
those tabha immerses. The places in our version wTiere this 
tabha occurs are Psalms ix. 15. "The heathen [tabha — Greek 
of Schleusner — baptidzo] are sunk down in the pit they made." 
No one perishes here. It is simply calamities and pits they 
sink into. The other is Psalms Ixix. 2, in James' version, '-sink 
(tabha)\n deep mire." Here is no submersion — no going clear 
under, no dip, no perishing. Here then these men blunder all the 
way through, and become victims of tabha themselves. Zalha 
never means anything but immerse — never in all the Bible. It 
never means dip. 'No lexicon ever so defined it, and they would 
have been false if they had. It never applies to overflowing. 
In neither case given by Schleusner does the objects perish — 
die as the effect of tabha. So all their smoke is cleared away. 
]N"ow then they make S. say in the sense of tabha, bajjtidzo 
never occurs in the New Testament, but it does verg frequently 
in Greek writers, e. g. Diodorus Siculus, of the overflowing 
of the Nile, etc. Now it so happens that bajytidzo never occurs 
in any Greek writer known, in the sense it does in these two 
Psalms. Where does it mean "sink down into a pit" — " sink 
in deep mire," referring toanextricable troubles and sorrows? 
Nowhere in "Greek writers." Hence these men make the 
Greek critic speak like an ignoramus, and say what would 
convict him of eccresrious is^norance. But this is not the only 
vexatious trouble in which they are involved. They say that it 
means baptidzo does occur in the New Testament in the sense 
of tabhal. 

But 1. In no instance in all the Bible does tabhal immerse, 
envelop or cover up the object. 

2. All great lexicographers tell us even when it means dip, 
(tingo) "it merely touches the object to the liquid in part or 
in whole." It never envelops or puts the object under the 



Mode of Baptism. 453 

element. So this ruins their position. They insist "hac" 
must refer to the last word, tabha, because in classic Latin 
especially where two such words as hac and ilia, or hoc, illud 
oecur, the hie, haec, hoc, refers to the latter. But (1) this is in 
classic use. (2) It is not rigidly followed, but often reversed. 
(3) The common Latin often reverses, as Selden does. See 
speech 15, 4, 4. It makes Selden say what is false and ab- 
surd. 

Let us construct a sentence and apply this rule of theirs. 

Tertullian uses tingo as we do baptize, the Germans taitfen, 
and under tingo he places as species of it perfundo, adspergo, 
louo, mergo. Bat in this sense, in hac autern, etc., it never oc- 
curs in Ovid, Virgil or Horace. Or I sa}^ tingo, to baptize, 
administer baptism, and answers to baptidzo in Matt, xxviii, 
19 and to taufen, Luther's Version, Matt, iii, 16; Luke iii, 
16-21, but in this sense it never occurs in Virgil, Horace, etc., 
but does very often in Cyprian and the Christian Fathers, etc. 
To what must the word "this sense" refer? Certainly to 
both baptize and administer baptism, the whole meaning. 
Hence "^ hac " refers to a united meaning — to the definitions 
as one, not to the referenees. In no book on earth making a 
definition with mere references, and not one of them, defined, 
<^ould it be held as interpreted by those men. 

To further their cause, in speech 15 he changes the punctu- 
ation, leaves out a very important word, and thus helps to 
conceal the sense. In his last he drops '-'- aatem^^^ to help con- 
ceal it further, adds a word that is not in S., and thus seeks 
to destroy the sense. 

Here is Sehleusner: Baptidzo, properiy.^I immerse or 
dip, I plunge into w^ater, from bapto, and answers to the He- 
brew tabhal, 2 Kings, v, 14, in the Alexandrian version, and 
tabha in Symmachus. Ps. Ixviii, 5, and in an uncertain one, 
Ps. ix, 6. But in this sense it never occurs in the l^ew Tes- 
tament," etc. 

Clearly this tells us baptidzo does not occur in the sense of 
dip, immerse, in the ]^ew Testament. If it were still in doubt, 
he dissipates it by snowing that from his view baptidzo meant 
or immerse in water in classic Greek, and thence came to 



454 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

mean wash, cleanse, so he urges and sajs. It then means wash, 
cleanse. So says S., hence applied to baptism. 

He then quotes where a number of manuscripts read 
sprinJcIe for baptize, and they include the two oldest Bibles in 
the world, in Mark vii, 4. Thus he shows this washing was 
by sprinkling also, as well as by immersing. Then he tells 
us it is " to administer to, give to one copiously, to pour 
forth," etc. 

Finally, all that old school of writers w^ho urge exactly the 
same argument S. does on haptidzo, some naming tabhal also, 
Beza and Suicer, e. g., when they come to tell of Apostolic 
baptism tell us it w^as by pouring, etc. Beza is far less favor- 
ble to our side, seemingly, when defining his ideas of how it 
means to wash. Yet he held that John also baptized by 
'-'pouring.'' So of Witsius, Stokius, etc. 

The testimony of Stokius is that because, by a metalepsis 
baptidza means wash, cleanse, and because the cleansing and 
washing was actually performed " by sprinkling the water," 
and this sprinkling the water for purification or cleansing was 
practiced by Jews for centuries, Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38, 
because they were accustomed to thus cleanse, "hence, (Amc) 
because of this fact, it {baptidzo) is transferred to the Sacra- 
ment of baptism." Hence 'hnetaphoricaUi/ it designates the 
pouring out of the Holy Spirit." 

Why this metaphorical use ? Why does baptidzo thus occur 
in the Gospels, and Epistles, and Acts ? Hear him. " Since 
anciently the water was copiously poured upon those baptized 
or they were immerged deep into the water," etc. 'Now when 
S. bases his metaphorical use of baptidzo — "-pour out'' on the 

ACTUAL FACT THAT THUS THEY BAPTIZED PEOPLE BY POUEING 

WATER ON THEM, to try to jumblc and garble that with meta- 
phor, is just worthy of the cause that mistates all authorities, 
misquotes all lexicons, misconstrues all facts that stand in the 
way of their heated distempers and fanatic intolerance. He 
admits Schleusner means the same, and so do we, and thus we 
pass in the record. 

Dr. Graves quotes Barnabas, and Hermas next, thus : "Bar- 
nabas, supposed to have been the companion of St. Paul, &c./' 



Mode of Baptism. 455 

and " Hermas, writing about A. J). 95, in the " Shepherd/' 
works "ascribed" to those, saj — what ? ]^ot a word about dip 
or immerse. But look at the dates given these apocryphal 
mythic writers. Paul's day and A. D. 95 was still in John's 
day. Does even Dr. Graves believe they lived then — the Her- 
mas and Barnabas here quoted f Hear Dr. Graves, in a note 
on these very men, Orchard's History, p. 13, where Orchard 
gives A. D. 92, and Barnabas as " Paul's companion'' — hear 
Dr. Graves on that — " I am not willing to endorse the above two 
fathers as orthodox or as the cotemporaries of the Apostles.''^ 
All writers who have a decent respect for fact now place them 
far down in the second century and as most foolish and ridicu- 
lous writers and dreamers, especially Hermas. We have 
quoted Tertullian enough — Dr. Graves has made no attempt 
to reply. 

He has produced his authorities. All fail. He has not — 
he cannot produce a case of baptism by dipping a person once 
into the water, or immersing him, and immersing him as 
Baptists baptize before the fourth century after Christ. He 
can't find a case of baptism by three immersions till Tertul- 
lian, and he dates him A. D. 204 in his last speech. Super- 
stitions and superstitious ideas of the efficacy of water are 
held by Tertullian that are revolting. Yet he tells us also 
baptism was "a single sprinkling of water" on the subject, 
He uses adspergo — sprinkle, jperfundo^ sprinkle, louo^ " wash, 
besprinkle," tingo^ " moisten, wet — equivalent to Greek hudor 
and raino, sprinkle — sprinkle with water, and mergo, mergito — 
sink, plunge, for baptize. Dr. Graves renders him thus : 

** Tertullian, writing about A. J). 204, says, the person to be baptized is 
let down into the water, and with a few words said is dipped.^ ^ 

Il^ow let down in Tertullian is mer^z/s— rendered dip and im- 
merse constantly by Dr. Graves in this debate. The word he 
renders " dipped " is tingo, always used by Tertullian for bap- 
tize, even, as a rule where he uses adspergo and lavo and mergo 
to describe it. The truth is, Tertullian is here describing the 
superstitious way of putting a person quite neck deep — mergo 
— sinking, mersing him, and then while thus mersed in water 
to soak the grace of God into him— to "imbibe" it as Tertul- 



456 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

lian says, the baptism " tingo^^ is entirely separate as an ordi- 
nance from the soaking he gets, merged in water. In many 
cases if not all at that time, the baptism was performed by 
sprinkling his head as he thus stood in water. At last they 
got to " ducking" their heads under, and thus began immer- 
sion — three times ducking their heads. And these are the 
allasions to descending into the water by the monstrously super- 
stitious Hermas. In my possession are all the old Syriac Rit- 
uals in Assemani Bib. Orientalis, four folio volumns of Syriac 
— in which, in the dark, superstitious ages which Bar-Hebrseus 
celebrates, quoted by Dr. Graves, speech sixteenth, they 
stood people in the water for an hour or so, parading, singing, 
praying over them, then baptizing them after having mersed 
them in water for an hour or two. But it was not the baptism. 
They would then baptize them "standing in the water." 
Hence, Gesenius Thesaurus says " amad among the Syrians 
was baptize, because {quod) they stood in the water who were 
baptized." Schindler says the same — " For he stood in the 
water." They thought amad in Syriac, from this way of bap- 
tizing, was the same as the Hebrew — a mistake. All ancient 
Syrians held that Christ stood in or by the Jordan and was 
baptized by pouring as He stood. Alas for immersion as the 
(mly mode ! 

I will here remark that in my debafe with Dr. Wilkes, I had 
an edition of Wesley's notes, very old, that had not the words 
"by immersion" in it on Rom. vi., 5, owned now by Rev. J, 
R. Dempsey, Ky., but when I saw the other editions all had 
it, I promptly published the fact in a number of papers to do 
justice to all parties, as well as when my reporter made several 
mistakes in names — quoting Bloomfield, Olshausen and 
Kuinel just the reverse as I quoted them in one or two 
places, I was the first to detect and publish a correction. I 
was some 330 miles from where the work was done — proofed 
in enormous haste and a few such errors went uncorrected. 
Hence I never issued a 2d ed. myself, though Dr. Wilkes did. 

Mr. President, Dr. Graves has put it in evidence that he has 
I'ansacked the U. S. for helps and facts on this proposition. 
'^o stone is left unturned by him. But all is vain. If truth 



Mode of Baptism. 457 

were on his side he would not have to toil, and torture, and 
twist as he does. He tells us we must take the first meanings, 
yet on Hebrew he has not taken the^r^^ meaning of a single 
lexicon of the great standards, nor the second as they explain 
themselves. He never takes the first meaning of lavo^ never. 
He never takes the first of louo, nor of amad. Why this incon- 
sistency. By his rule we can make sprinkle and pour always 
mean immerse. Vazah sprinkle in Hebrew is defined moist- 
ened, wet. He makes those the effect of immersion. Hudoi 
water, raino sprinkle — sprinkle with water he m:ikes ^'bathe^' 
that is "immerse !" Fundo pour means bathe also; hence im- 
merse. Perfundo means bathe also, hence "immerse." Chuthoo 
to pour, means to "bathe," hence pour is immerse. How easy 
it is to prove immersion ! ! Zeq and brecho sprinkle, shed forth 
as tears, to rain, means "to bathe" — hence it is immerse. 
How easy it is to prove immersion. 

You have seen how often he tried to put Leigh on his 
side. Over and again he quoted what this one, that one, an- 
other one said, as if it was Leigh. Thus all Baptist books 
have been doing. Yet in not an instance was it Leigh, but 
an immersion theologian quoted by Leigh so as to present both 
sides while he defined it as we showed for aftusion. You see 
how he used Alford on Syriac, Castell's lexicon ; how he ex- 
pressed astonishment that I should claim that Terretinus, Light- 
foot, Alford, etc., etc., sustained affusion!! While in points 
almost innumerable we have exposed him, not once — no, not 
ONCE has he found where we were unfair or misinterpreted an 
author. Truth needs no dodges or turns, or suppressions. 
Judge ye then, of the right. 

But we now have at last his effort to meet our Hebrew ar- 
gument, and such an effort! It simply amazes us. He 
takes up tabhal itabal). Note well, and let us see the degree 
of accuracy he exhibits: for, dear friends, many of you, no 
do^bt, are perplexed as to who is correct where such charges 
and differences occur; you want to know the truth. JSTow 
notice who is exposed and stands corrected — who not. You 
lijve already seen me correct Dr. Graves on scores of issues, 
a. id he stood corrected. Not once have I been found incorrect and 



45 S The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

exposed. Look at the exposures I made in the last two speeches. 
Thej' are simply fearful. It must still go on. 

On tabhal, Dr. Graves (speech 16) says it " signifies to dip, 
to immerse, and is the term as generally used to express the 
act of putting under,^' etc. Dr. Graves and I, are committed 
to this rule — that lexicons are reliable only to the extent that 
the}' are supported by the texts — the citations they give or 
can cite, to support their definitions. Tabhal occurs only 
sixteen times in the Bible. In not a single instance does it put 
the object under any element — submerse it. Joseph's coat v^as 
tabhaled, "baptized with the blood of a kid." — Gen. xxxvii, 31. 
All the facts show the garment was sprinkled with the blood. 
So the old Peshito translates it — phalphael — to sprinkle.* The 
Septuagint translates tabhal here by nioluno. Dr. Graves 
says "Let it be remembered that woluno no more means to 
^ sprinkle' ^ ^ ^ than bapto or bap>tidzoy Were we to 
grant that, it helps not his cause, if for no other reason than 
this — it does mean ' to sprinkle ! ' Passow renders it " sprinkle " 
besp)rengen. Post & Palm render it sprinkle. So do Donne- 
gan, Liddell & Scott, yea, the immersionist lexicographer, 
Stephanus, says of it : " Frimitava notio est conspergere f the 
PRIMITIVE meaning is to sprinkle." Yet Dr. Graves would 
tell us it does not mean to sprinkle. Examine Leviticus iv. 6, 
17; xiv. 6, 49-53, where this word occurs, and you will see it 
does not immerse any object. The bird that was tabhaled — 
baptized "with the blood of the slain bird" — so it is in He- 
brew — had not its head, wings and tail even touched with the 
blood. But Buxtorff", Stokius, Leigh, Schindler, Pabbi 
Kimchi, the nineteen renowned lexicographers in Castell, i.e. 
twenty-five of the greatest Hebrew lexicographers ever known 
till Furst, tell us tabhal when it i^ dii^, ^^ merely touches the 
object to the liquid." [See m}' fourth speech, p. 87-88.] 
Furst defines tabhal "to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle, to im- 
merse." He is the prince of Hebrew scholars and immersed 
all Gentile converts. 

•' Buxtorff, folio lexicon,, phalphael coiispersit^ Castell : conspersit 
Gesenius: conspersit. 

r Thesaurus, vol. v. p. 6^3L 



Mode of Baptism. 459 

But he is an honest critic, and the most studious ever 
known. 

But to see how reliable Dr. Graves' criticisms are, he says 
tabhal means to " overwhelm." Now, 

1. -N'ot a lexicon or authority on earth ever gave it such a 
meaning. 

2. 1^0 text on earth gives any countenance to such a meaning. 
Baptists are so loose in language that with them "dip," "over- 
whelm," "immerse," "plunge," are all one ! I^or did we ever 
see a Baptist — certainly none of their scholars would do so — • 
render tabhal "overwhelm." 

He cites the washing of Naaman, II Kings, v, 10, 14, as a 
case of dipping, because James' translators render tabhal dip, 
in V, 14. 

Benedict, the Baptist Historian, quotes the old Baptist His- 
torian, Ivimey's Hist. Eng. Baptists, vol. 1,138-140, thus, of the 
years 1616 to 1683, in England, "immersion being incontro- 
vertibly the universal practice in England at that time," p. 
337. [See my third speech also, p. 64.] They render it dip. 

iSTow, 1. The command was to wash or purify himself seven 
times— rac/ia^s in Hebrew, louo in Greek. Lev. xiv, 7, gives 
us the law. " He shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed 
from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean." 

Did the Prophet violate God's law? This he could do and 
did do, standing " in the Jordan ;" as truly as an army en- 
camped en by the fountain, or as the 3,000,000 stood still in 
the Jordan. 

2. ]N"o lexicon or authority that ever existed gives dip or 
immerse as a meaning of rachats or louo — wash. 

3. Joseph us, a high priest in Apostolic times, interchange 
wash, rachats — louo with sprinkle. See page 106 of speech 5th. 

The best Greek lexicons in the world give us sprinkle and 
pour as meanings of louo, including Galen, the oldest native 
Greek lexicographer in the world, Stephanus, and the English 
present edition of Liddell & Scott. 

4. Not only is " shed forth," " pour," the primary force of 
rachats , But the Septuagint, so extolled by Dr Graves, trans- 



460 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

lates rachats by cheo^ "to pour,'' but never does any version ren- 
der it "dip.'''" AVliere now the mode of this washing? 

5. Ail ancient Versions, Peshito, Itala, Vulgate. Jewish, 
Chaldee, Ai-abic, etc., render it — tahhal in verse 14 — by icash — 
su:ho in Syriac, rachats in Jonatiian, the Jewish translator, lovx) 
in Latin Versions. Hence the whole voice of antiquity, and 
all scholarship unite in the fact that it was not immersion. 

6. In the next place, it is a physical impossibility tor him to 
have dipped himself in the sense of dipping the whole person; 

for he would be fully shoulder deep or quite so, ere he could 
or would dip. It would only be his shoulders, arms and head 
he would dip therefore. 

7. He was to y:as}'.^ not dip. Such was the command. 
Baptidzo and tahhal mean to wash and sprinkle, and harmonize 
with the above, while rachats and louo never mean '• dip,'' and 
hence the facts harmonize not with dip, here. 

Dr. Graves says the " most learned Eabbins tell us that in- 
variably in the Hebrew purifications where rachats, • to wash,' 

is spoken of. either of the clothes or of the person, the whole 
body must be immersed in water."" They do no such thing. 
Xo Eabbi on earth says so. Maimonides we quoted, speech 
8th, p. 173—4. Xo mode was required. The words to express 
that washing Avere : 

1. Rachats, primarily meaning "to pour out. to drip." and 
translated ^0'.^/' (cAfo) by the Version used by the Apostles — 
Septuagint. 

2. Kahas. which is "wash,'^ and no lexicon ever made gives 
it "dip"' or "imjnerse." 

3. Shataph. "to pour," "wash," "a pouring rain," Gesenius. 
"A rain-gust," Furst. I Xings xxii, 38, it is used where the 
Ej.ng'"s chariot is icashed. Xo immersion appears in all this. 

4. Tahhal is used, and already examined. Primarily it is 
"' to sprinkle." 

5. Maimonides and the Eabbins of the dark ages, tell us it 
was onlv for extraordinarv pollutions that thev thus thor- 
oushlv washed. For all ordinarv washings, about one-fifth 
of a pint sufficed. Pocock, Leigh, Buxtorff, Lightfoot, 



Mode of Baptism. 461 

and Castell, all prove this from the Rabbins. Pocock took 
more pains on that point, among the ancient Jews, examining 
Maimonides' collections beyond all other scholars. Thus 
melts away all the positions of Dr. Graves. Try your hand 
again, Doctor, and don't fret so much. 

Dr. Graves now quotes Mark i. 9, ds ton Jordanen. Does 
he not know it is not eis there ? Eis occurs in Mark i, 5, with 
reference to Christ, but not in i, 9. 

The Doctor says " there were two other versions made 
between the latter half of the first and the middle of the 
second century." What means this ? ]^o critic we ever 
heard of dates them earlier than the last half of the second 
century. But that is early enough for a fine version. He 
savs of these Greek Versions — " both of these translate taval 
invariably by haipto and baptidzoJ^ They do no such thing. 
Dr. Graves flouts out much about scholars, controversialists, 
etc. Why does he blunder so? Neither of these versions 
translates tabhal by baptidzo. So many blunders in one assum- 
ing so much is inexcusable. 

At last he ventures, after long waiting, corresponding, and 
imploring, calls for help from Dr. Yarden, Prof. Toy, etc. 
Well, he is backed by the Baptist learning of America, then, 
as I understand him to assume here. Very well, Pll call 
Prof. Austin, Bishop Tarwater, Dr. Dockery, and others into 
our counsel to-night, and wo to Dr. Graves then ! Meantime 
I will pursue my argument. 

We feel sorry Dr. Graves is so peevish. He says all our ado 
over versions is to show the extent of our familiarity with the 
language. We presume the Doctor is joking, however. Any- 
way, he will get over his wrath ere long, we hope. We 
know Jordan is deep water for him now, if he did quite dry 
it up in his first speech. 

His first dash at Syriac is a repulse. He says " it has been 
held by a few, until recently, that Christ spoke Syriac, but the 
most prominent of the class. Dean Alford, frankly gives it up 
a.s untenable." Kow, what will you think when we tell you 
this is an outrage on every principle of fact. Alford says not 



462 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

one word about the Syriac in that place, being or not being 
Christ's vernacular. He is discussing whether Matthew com- 
posed his gospel originally in Syriac. There is not a scholar 
that ever lived that denied that Christ's vernacular was Syro- 
Aramsean or Syriac. He cannot produce a critic or even 
"controversialist" of his order that ever denied it. Here are 
a few of the many that will tell him so : Wahon, Ludovicus, 
Martini, Francius, Carpzoo, Leusden, Tremeleus, Lowth, 
Lightfoot, A. Clarke, Home, S. Davidson, Michselis, Stiles, 
President of Yale College, Alford, Olshausen, Gale, the 
Baptist, A. Campbell, etc., etc. Is a man not ashamed to act 
as Dr. Graves does in this? Dr. Graves says sprinklers have 
asked why was not tava instead of taval chosen to indicate im- 
mersion? He then quotes Davis on tzeva, another word 
altogether, and uses it as if the same word ! He says " sprink- 
lers ask '■ why " 6a/)to should have been selected instead of 
baptidzo to indicate wn(io?/6^e<^ immersion?" (Speech sixteen.) 
He never heard, he never saw, he never read anything of the 
kind, and he knows it. He has seen where Stuart and such as 
followed him, Rice, etc., say the Syrians had tzeva, and wh}' 
not use it instead of amad, and the same parties all quote bapto 
to prove sprinkling. Dr. Graves knows — for he published 
the book — revieiued it — that Stuart mainly relied on bapto as 
tound in the Greek of Daniel iv. and v., to prove sprinkling. 
He knows Rice mainly relied on bapto there and in the ver- 
sions where the Syriac, Itala, Jerome — all ancient ones, and 
Origen translate bapto sprinkle. 

Chapman, Summers, and all compiled works, follow suit. 
How can a man, then, knowing these things, send such a 
sent'^ice to the ^vorid ? Yon all may form an estimate from 
these thino^s as to the reliabilitv of Dr. Graves on snch matters, 
and who is to be trusted. 

Dr. Graves comes out, as I knew he would, strongly against 
the early date and purity of the grand old Pcshito- He quotes 
Arnold as saying "the first historic proof of its existence is in 
the fourth century." But wu know that Origen, the most 
learned man the church ever h:id in the first seventeen liun- 
(lrc<l vcars of the Christi;iii or:! riuotcs i". and luits in l.l.-toric 

V J. ' i. 



Mode of Baptism. 463 

evidence of its being a familiar and well-known work in Ms 
day. He was born A. D. 185, only eighty-four years after 
John's death. Ephraim Cyrus cites one who wrote A. D. 220, 
who treats it as an established work in his day. Among those 
who held it to be of the apostolic age, we name Walton, 
Carpzoo, Leusden, Lowth, Martini, Tremelius, Francius, 
Kennicott, Michselis, and S. Davidson, Palfrey, and President 
Stiles, of our age. These include, by far, the ablest critics, 
with Castell, on Syriac, that ever have lived. A number of 
them wrote Syriac Lexicons and Grammars. Uhlmann and 
Hoffmanns may be set down in the same list — the great Syriac 
Grammarians of this age. To this we add three more, whom, 
may be. Dr. Graves will respect, viz: Drs. Gale, Judd and 
J. R. GRAVES, LL. D. Dr. Gale, the most learned Baptist 
Europe ever yet produced, thus deposes: " The Syriac must 
be thought almost as valuable and authentic as the original 
ITSELF, being made from primitive copies, in or very near the 
times of the apostles," He holds it was made from '' primitive 
copies" — and he tells us what he means by a primitive copy 
— " the AUTOGRAPH '' of the apostle — the very copy made by an 
apostle. — [Reflec. on Wall, ii, 118.] 

What does Dr. Graves say, doing as so often here he does, 
copying another? 

" The old Syriac, or Peshito, is acknowledged to be the most ancient, as 
well as one of the most accurate versions of the New Testament extant. 
It was made at least as early as the beginning of the second century — 
[John lived into the second century], in the very country where the 
apostles lived and wrote, and where both the Syriac and the Greek were 
constantly used and perfectly understood. Of course it was executed by 
those who understood and spoke [notice that] both languages precisely 
as the sacred tur iters themselves undeYstood said s^ioke them. * '■■ * * 
All the Christian sects in Syria and the East make use of this version ex- 
clusively. — Appendix to Stuart by Dr. Graves, p. 245. 

Thus we appeal to Dr. Graves when he and his people 
thought this version favored them, against the chagrined 
partisan and controversialist when desperate under the well- 
aimed arrows of truth — when stung and mortified before a 
people who looked for deliverance. Do not all men see that 
he takes any position just as he thinks it will, for the moment, 
aid his cause ? This brings us face to face with the use of the 



464 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Syriac. But in the mean time, what does he do with all the 
other versions ? He is so excited, he can see nothing now 
but the Syriac. We will expose his perversions of it speedily. 
But how does he dispose of our facts on all these. points? He 
simply omits them as he did the laver and most of our facts. 

When he says tzeva is never used to translate baptidzo in the 
Syriac, we presume he means — in the Peshito; for it often 
trauslntes baptidzo in Syriac. He comes to the lexicons. Now 
does not Dr. Graves hold that the first meaning is the primary 
one 2 Has he not fought on that line all the way through? 
Then look at the facts. From his own list not a lexicon gives 
dip or immerse first. Bernstein is only a glossary. The 
great Castell gives " amad, primarily, to wash, to baptize. 
Derivatively (Aphel) to immerse," and in no place in theXew 
Testament does it thus occur. Yet Dr. Graves, though I 
loaned him my Castell for some twenty-four hours, leave out 
the word ''primarily," and "derivatively" as Aphel is a derived 
meaning and a derived form. Oberleitner puts it the same 
way — "derivativel}^, to immerse." [See speech seventh.] Dr. 
Graves makes Michselis say, amac? comes from ''ghamat. to im- 
merse." I have Michselis, where that note occurs, and he 
do&s not say so. He suggests its possibility. He defines it 
exactly as Castell, not using "primarily," but "to wash, baptize, 
derivatively, immerse." That it is the same, even Dr. Graves 
puts Gutbier as ssijing immerse ! ! l^ot a word of it. It is sim- 
ply baptize. Had he meant "immerse," would he not have said 
"immersit," instead of "baptizavit?" IN'ow see from this how 
the Doctor forces matters against all the facts. 

Dr. Graves is equally unfortunate in citations. He cites the 
places where the noun is applied to Siloam where people 
washed. Did people use Siloam as ^'sl swimming-pool f" After 
the crushing and unanswered facts of my fifth speech on the 
laver, the Doctor means it as a joke when he cites Mark vii. 
4 as immersion. He will indulge in jokes often. Well, it en- 
livens debate. In this however, he cites Kum. xxxi, 23, 
rinse, wash it with water — literally "ye shall bring it to the 
water," i. e to be washed, and he renders this plunge! When 
did the Hebrew "go bring," mean "immerse," "plunge ?" 



Mode of Baptism. 465 

And he cites Bar — Hebraeus, a writer of the thirteenth century, 
as the language was expiring, as quoting Job xli. 1, where the 
Leviathan plunges in the depth of the sea. 1. That is not dip- 
ping. The Leviathan is already in the depths of the sea. He is 
not dipped. He is already immersed. So amad only washes 
him. Dr. Graves equally misstates Bar Ali and the rest. 
"Bernstein's Glossary is written only on one Syriac writer — 
Bar-Hebrseus of the thirteenth century. It is quoted from a 
second-hand authority who garbles and misquotes all who dif- 
fer from him. 

It has been claimed that one place is found where amad the 
Syriac word in the E'ew Testament for baptize means to im- 
merse, or necessarily implies it. Gotch quotes it to that pur- 
pose, and Wilkes. * "And that yet, at a small river, that same 
head ot them should be subject to be bowed down and bap- 
tized in it." The Syriac is '^with if i. e. its waters. I give 
Gotch's own rendering. As this is admitted to be the strong- 
est text that Gotch, Wilkes or Graves could adduce for im- 
mersions in Syriac, let us analyze it. 

1. He was baptized not in but " at the river." f Hence it 
was not immersion. 

2. If his body was immersed, why only speak of his head as 
baptized, or receiving its waters? 

3. 'No one bows his head simply to be immersed — the body 
is placed under the element. 

4- The figure of Ephraim Cyrus is, that as the waters of the 
sea when in billows, calmed down under the Savior's feet, so 
now, Az^head bows for the water of an "insignificant stream," 
to be poured upon it. 

5. All ancient records, pictures, and the few Syriac lexicons 
that thought amad meant to stand, represent that Christ stood 
while being baptized, the water being in those pictures repre- 
sented as poured upon him. 

In an ancient council of the Syrian church, we read that the 
question of the gender of the verb and the consequent form 

* Bible Question, 130 ; Lou. Debate, 577. 
t Le nahro. 

29 



466 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

to be used, was discussed, verbs have gender in Semitic lan- 
guages — when they say : "when he baptizes, even with the in- 
vocation of the holy Trinity, and with an ablution of natural 
water, immersion, or sprinkling, it is not true baptism "unless 
the proper word is used also."* 

"If, when he baptizes, he uses that [form of amadC] for the 
present imperative . . . immersion in natural water, washing 
or sprinkling, with the invocation of the holy Trinity J'^ 

This is the Latin rendering of the Assemani. 

Thus we see that the strongest texts they can select fail to 
support them, but do support us. 

And now what can Dr. Graves answer to these suppressions 
in his quotations? Has he any respect for his own rules? 
None whatever. He tells us the first definition of an author is 
the primary meaning and the only literal, proper one. Yet he 
finds no lexicon on earth that giv^es dip or immerse as a first, 
second, or third meaning of tingo, yet he always renders it dip 
or immerse. He never saw a lexicon that gives dip, or im- 
merse as the first meaning of amud, yet he puts it always to 
immerse. 

He tells us Gotch is an Episcopalian ! Does he not know 
that he is the President of their Baptist College at Bristol ? 
If not, let him look at Cramp's Baptist History, p. 581. Call 
this Baptist an Episcopalian! 

But Dr. Graves seeks to impress the people with the idea 
that I hold that amad means " to stand.'' Dr. Graves, it is bad 
to suppress the word " primarily " in Castell, and "derivative"' 
forms. It is bad enough to so quote as to leave all you quote 
in the extremest doubt, but this is too little. Do cheer up, liuld 
up your head, and do better. As to Home's views, they arc 
nothing as compared with any one we quoted, as he is a mere 
servile compiler, of great value, I admit, but not an indepen- 
dent critic of equal merit with any of them. 

As to Dr. Graves' quotation of Bar Ali, we call for tlio 

* Bibliotheca Orientalis, Romae, 1719 torn. iv. 250, "ablution inimer- 
sione, Yel aspersione, etc." 

t Ibid, in aquam naturalem immersio ablutio aspersio. 



Mode of Baptism. 467 

original. After suppressing so much from Castell, who is in 
my hand; translating Gutbier whom I have, as he does, and as 
no immersionist ever dared do before, dodging Michselis and 
misstating him as he does, we call for the papers in this case, 
and for the original Glossary of Bernstein, though of almost no 
importance, since twelve hundred years after the Apostles, is a 
little late. We call also, for the original on Hebrews vi., 2. 
We deny that the Syriac reads that way. Now let him give 
us the Syriac, then we will test it. 

He quotes Bernstein's little Glossary as giving " dipped " 
three times. There is no dip in Bernstein. He does, not give dip 
a single time. The meanings he gives are " sink, be sunk," 
applying it to cases of sinking in the sea, an arrow penetrat- 
ing the head, &c., and the day sinking, going down. Where 
is the day ? Who says the day dips ? What jargon ! But all 
this is in an inferior author, defining the word as it was used 
in one writer the last representative of Syriac as it died, twelve 
hundred years after its vigor had passed away. And this is all 
he can do for Syriac ! ! But we have more to say on this Glos- 
sary of the dark ages. It was when the Syrians and Arabs 
were so mixed, that Bar-Hebrseus and Bernstein here confound 
the Arabic ghamat immerse, plunge in a sword, arrow, etc,, 
with amad, wash. Kow against all this we showed the fol- 
lowing : 

1. Amad. Castell, equivalent to twenty-one Lexicons on 
Syriac, gives — ^'Primarily, to wash, baptize. Derivatively, im- 
merse." This is no Bible Syriac. It is supported by the ear- 
liest, golden age of the language. Graves is twelve hundred 
years too late. 

Arabic, same word used for baptize — " To be wet with rain. 
To sprinkle, be sprinkled, bedew, sprinkle with water, (rain, 
dew.") This is supported by citations supporting it. Native 
Arabs of greatest culture assisted in making it. 

2. Catafago, a great scholar in Arabic — lived in Arabia 
and Syria sixteen to eighteen years, in his Lexicon defined 
by him in English — "to be wet with rain." That is his ivhole 
definition of " aynadJ^ He talked and read Arabic as we do 
English. 



468 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. ScHAAF gives ""wash " as the first meaning. Its noun, ho, 
Castell, and Oberleitner give no dip or immerse as a meaning 
of baptism. 

4. GuTBiER does not give dip, immerse, or plunge for amad 

5. Gesenius does not give dip or immerse, &c. 

6. MicH^Lis- — amad, to wash, baptize. Derivatively, (Aphel) 
to immerse. Schaaf could find no place where it meant im- 
merse, save Kum. xxxi, 24, so of Castell. This is equivalent 
to twenty-six Svriac lexicons all against you. 

As Dr. Graves seeks to conceal the facts under ''bathe'' 
where wash occurs, we will show the deception here also. 
Even in the case of Susanna i, 15, 17, he says it was " bathe or 
immerse one's self." N'ow, she called for balls of soap that she 
might •' wash herself." Do we use soap in mere bathing or 
for leashing f 

Again, wherever the Spiritual washing is referred to — same 
word being used — how will it read to say, Is. i, 16, '' bathe 
you?" Ps. li, "Bathe me thoroughly from mine iniquities, 
bathe me and I shall be clean?" But you can see what his 
"bathe" is. 

He renders hugraino, sprinke with water, by " bathe." Lid- 
dell & Scott under chutta, from cheo pour, by " water for wash- 
ing or bathing." 

It was because it was poured on. The noun form of louo 
wash, which Dr. Graves renders bathe, is compounded with the 
noun of cheo, to pour, " a water-pourer," for the servant who 
poured water on those who "bathed." Also, he is called 
" water-sprinkler," in Greek. Yet Dr. Graves tells you all 
these " ARE IMMERSIONS ! ! ! Liddell & Scott also render chuthoo, 
a verb whose stem or root is cheo, by "to wash, bathe anoint;" 
anoint, because the oil was poured and the water was poured. 
Jn ALL cases where lavo, louo,nipto, pluno, rachats, etc., are modal, 
it is either sprinkle or pour. Yet he tells you it is "bathe 
or immerse ! ! ! " Bathed in tears is " immerse, by metaphor," 
so all is "immerse" with him. • 

Now what has he done? We both appeal to lexicons here 
and they crush his position. Castell and Catafago both sup- 



Mode of Baptism. 469 

port sprinkling downright — " wet with rain," they both give, 
'* sprinkle, bedew," etc., etc., repeated over and again. 

We appeal to texts and authorities. Dr. Graves finds not 
one that uses amad for immerse, though he even brought up 
Leviathan from the deep. We saw where baptidzo, Judith 
xii, 7, baptized epi taes pagaes — at the fountain of water. 
Guards of soldiers were set over these fountains, ch. vii, 7, 
etc. The Syriac reads, ^- washed herself at the fountain," 
Conant dishonestly rendering it immersed. Susanna washed. 
The Greek is louo, wash. One Syriac reads secho, wash. An- 
other reads, amad^ wash. ' We gave them, speech 7th. We 
quoted the ancient councils using sprinkle under amad. We 
cited ancient Sj-rian traditions about using water caught in 
small vessels, divided out as an element with which to baptize. 
All these facts stand against the vain efiforts of our opponent. 
On tzeva and Tzabeans, the Doctor is so lame and feeble, we 
take pity on him, and simply refer the lover of truth to our 
iacts, speech 7th, As to Dr. Varden's big pool "in the third 
century," no such pool then existed, ^o Baptisteries existed 
till in the fourth century in connection with anj^ church. That 
is a well established fact. So that falls to the ground. 

As to the present time, and for several centuries, all three 
modes have been and are practiced. The testimonies of this 
are too patent to need citation. The very fact that councils 
should say " whether by ablution, [i. e., pouring], immersion 
or sprinkling," is sufficient there. Chapin, Dale, Chapman, 
Thompson, a Presbyterian tourist in the East, all give so 
many proofs of affusion among the Greek and Syrian churches, 
that quotations are useless. Our facts are of the earlier days, 
from the Apostles on. We care little for what mere barbarians, 
besotted with superstition and ignorance as the present S3n^ians 
are, as well as Greeks, say, though they practice all three 
modes. Apostolic practice is what we want. The whole 
body of early Syriac shows it was by affusion. The fact that 
Dr. Graves fights against the early date of the Syriac so hard, 
shows he knows it to be against him. 

He s;iys the Syriac of Horn, vi, 4, supports his position. 
1^0: d w ml of It The Sj-riac teiLse tlr^ro, is hoth i^resenf^ and 



470 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

'preterite as the sense may determine, and has not the Syriac 
sign for preterite that is used when it wishes to express the 
real past tense. It is rendered were by Murdock who onl}^ had 
begun to study Syriac six months, he tells us, when he made 
that translation. Poor preparation was that. Better get 
back and render sprinkle, pour, water — sprinkle, by bathe 
again. Doctor. 

I^ow with regard to the excellency and antiquity of the 
Peshito — 

I will quote Dr. Graves sober, against Dr. Graves after rub- 
bing up against poor Ewing so much. Dr. Graves said [Ap- 
pendix to M. Stuart on Baptism, p. 245], "it was made in the 
very country where the apostles lived and wrote ^ and where BOTH 
THE SYRIAC A^D GREEK WERE COiTSTANTLY 
FSED Ai^D PERFECTLY UNDERSTOOD." He add^- 
quoting it from Judd, the great Baptist — -" it was executed by 
those who understood and spoke both languages precisely as 
the sacred writers themselves understood and spoke them." 
Thus wrote Dr. Graves, a few years ago, copying Dr. Judd 
" by permission." Dr. Graves, were you writing as a " con- 
troversialist" then or nowf When were you aiming at the right 
of the matter? It was made in the centre of Syriac learning, 
as all scholars hold, and where the Syriac was pure, unmixed. 
Hence, being made there by the most accomplished scholars 
of the church, it was universally adopted — used by all Syrians. 
Paul and Thaddeus spent much of their time in the very region 
where it was made. Had it been made at any date later than 
the apostolic age, it would not have been at once unanimously 
accepted by all the opposing sects of the Syrian church that ap- 
pear in ages immediately after the apostles. All Syria held it 
to be of apostolic date. 

And now what is the result ? Our opponent is fallen, crushed. 
All his dodges and charges fail. He has spent nearly a day 
fighting over two Hebrew words that I, in common with him 
and all writers, omitted, as we all always have done, till I led 
the way in giving texts. He has done this too in mere wrath 
because I exposed his suppressions and those of their churchy 



Mode of Baptism. 471 

wbere the issue was — did lexicons give sprinkle, or pour? — 
not a question of opinion, but of fact. 

iJ^Totice now — 

1. All philology is with me. He never has even attempted 
a reply here. 

2. For hundreds of years bapto the 'primary word whence 
bapUdzo got its meaning, was to sprinkle, moisten, never dip 
for jive hu7idred years. 

3. It st:ll meant sprinkle as well as stain, color, dye, dip in 
later Greek, and the world of ablest scholars — Origen, Iren- 
seus, Hippolytus, the Syriac, Itala, Jerome, Sahidic, ^thiopic 
all translate it sprinkle. E'ot a word has he to say in 
reply, while he and all immersionists are committed to the 
position that it has the same meaning, though different use, as 
baptidzo. 

3. Our facts showed that the primary meaning of baptidzo was 
sprinkle. For centuries it meant sprinkle, and never immerse 
tUl Greek underwent a tremendous " change,^^ as his beloved Lid- 
dell and Scott's lexicon tells us ; then, in its corrupt age, it came 
at times to mean immerse. 

4. We showed that no lexicon on earth gives any author as 
using it in this sense till Polybius, Plutarch, etc. The critics, 
as well as all sense, agree that, by primary meaning is meant, 
the meaning '' the inventors of. thelanguage affixed to the word." 

5. We demonstrated that it never means <iip, mainly proving 
it by the greatest immersion authors. 

6. We demonstrated that it was the law of language to 
descend from sprinkle, through all the meanings ba'pto and 
baptidzo have, but never to reverse this course. This one sin- 
gle argument forever crushes out the whole immersion theory. 

7. We demonstrated affusion from the Laver argument. 

8. All versions of antiquity till the sixteenth century, made 
from the original, completely crush our opponent with remorse- 
less force, and sustain us. No wonder Dr. Graves writhes. It 
places a Caucassas on the heart of the immersion god, whose 
insolence has known no bounds. 



472 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

We wonder not that they writhe. But the truth shall come. 
You have assailed our people for years. Know then, that the 
days of Pompey are ended. We will conquer a peace. We 
have all the facts, all the means to crush out this haughty and ar- 
rogant assailant, Immersion, and we will do it. 

Once more, to show you the reliability of Gotch, whom Dr, 
Graves almost exclusively relies on in Syriac, I quote his words. 
— ''Of native words employed, the Syriac, Arabic, .^thiopic, 
etc., all signify to immersed' Let the student of truth turn to 
my seventh speech, p 147-150, and twelfth, p 275-279. We 
seclect just one word now that in the Arabic translates baptidzo^ 
baptisma^ and baptismos, all in the New Testament. It is 
gasala, [see p 150]. 

1. 'No Arabic lexicon in the world renders it dip, plunge or 
immerse, 

2. All render it wash — kivo. Castell gives it, ''To wash, to 
cleanse, etc. To be sprinkled with water, to wash diligently, 
wash off the limbs, be sprinkled, to sprinkle I [See his Latin, 
p 150.] Now, what need we say more on these points ? We 
submit the facts to a candid world with perfect confidence. — ■ 
[27me out.2 



Mode of Baptism. 473 



DR. GRAVES' EIGHTEENTH SPEECH. 

Replication. 

Mr. President : — Since my next speech is to be my last, 
and in that I must press all the proof that I am permitted to 
get before the people in support of this proposition, and as it 
is customary to give a summary of the argument, I shall now 
reply to my opponent for the last time on this question, and 
will observe as much order as it is possible in noticing a speech 
that is order-confounded. I have read several first-class dis- 
cussions, but never have I seen a disputant so chop up his 
speeches, so continually repeat himself, discuss what has been 
said to-day awhile, and then go back to re-open issues we dis- 
cussed the first day of the debate — then others, the second and 
third. He seems to have become dissatisfied with everything 
he has attempted to do, and I am not at all surprised, but only 
so that he should imagine that he could retrieve his " lost 
cause" at this late hour, and in the w^ay he has chosen to do 
it, by sound and fury, by laying aside all the measures of 
calmness and dignity that he has heretofore observed, and 
descending to language and manner that would disgrace a 
third-rate pettifogger in a magistrate's court. 

He has dignified much of his three last speeches as " doses !" 
Well he knows better than any one the stomach of his 
people, for nobody else swallowed them. This audience came 
here to listen to a dignified discussion, and not to buffoonery. 

1. You have heard his reply to what I advanced upon the true 
definition of tingo, when used by the Latin Fathers and with 
reference to baptism, and by the lexicographers when defining 
taval, bapio, baptidzOy and you heard the testimony of the ripest 
scholars of this age, that it means to dip, the act of the dyer 
when he dips to dye or color anything, and from this fact it 
came finally to mean to dye, to color, then to stain, moisten. 
All scholars know and admit this, and as Dr. Beecher says " l^o 



474 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

man can [in truth] deny it." Whenever Eld. Ditzler therefore 
translates it by " to sprinkle," when lexicographers give tingo, 
intingo, merso, immergo, as thje primary definition of the Hebrew 
verb taval, or the Greek verbs bapto, baptidzo, or the Syriac amad, 
he most grossly perverts these authors, and he does it ignorantly 
or iDteutionally, nor can he escape the alternative. 

With the figurative uses of tingo, I have nothing to do. 
They belong not to this discussion. His "Fort Tingo" yields 
to the first shot, and all his whole argument on versions falls 
with it. He can get no sprinkle out of any of them without 
the help of tiiigo perverted to mean to sprinkle. 

2. With respect to Oriental, versions, besides the Syriac 
which I have noticed, i. e. the Ethiopic or Abyssinian, Amharic, 
Armenian Ancient and modern, Georgian, Coptic, Sahidic, 
Arabic, Persian, I will read from the Appendix to my edition 
of " Stuart, on Baptism," and for which I have condensed 
Mr. Judd's able article on versions : 

Ethiopic or Abyssixiax.— It is generally agreed that the ancient 
Abyssinian version in the Gheez, or dialect, appropriated to religion, 
should be dated as early as the introduction of Christianity into the em- 
pire, that is, rather earlier than the middle of the fourth century. This 
version translates baptidzo by tamak^ which Castell says agrees (convenit 
cum) in signification with tava ; and this he defines immersus, demersus, 
submersus, fixus, infixus fuit; to immerge^ demerge, submerge, fix, 
infix. 

Amhahic. — The version in the Amharic, or common dialect of Ethiopia 
renders haptidzo by the same word, tamah, as the ancient Ethiopic, or 
Gheez. The Amharic version, published by the British and Foreign 
Bible Society, in 1822, was made by ^Ir. Abraham, a learned Ethiopian, 
under the superintendence of M. Asselin, the French Vice Consul at 
Cairo. 

AiiMEXTiAisr, AX"CIEXT. — The Ancient Armenian version is universally 
ascribed to Miesrob, the inventor of the Armenian alphabet, and the pa- 
triarch Isaac, at the end of the fourth, or early in the fifth century — See 
Home's Introduction, vol. ii. p. 208. This version translates baptidzo uni- 
formly by mugurdel, which is also employed in 2 Eangs v. 14, where 
Naaman is said to have dipped himself in the Jordan. This word, accord- 
ing to Father Pascal Aucher, signifies " to baptize ; to wash by plunging 
into water ;" and it is applied to both persons and things — See Dictionary 
of Armenian and English, by Father Pascal Aucher, D. D. Venice, 1825. 
Also Dictionary of the Armenian language, by Mekitar Vartebed. 
Venice, 1749. 



Mode of Baptism. 475 

Armenian, modern. — The modern Armenian version employs the 
same word as thie ancient Armenian in translating '* baptidzo,^' and its 
dei'ivatives. The Russian Bible Society, and the British and Foreign 
Bible Society, have printed and circulated editions of both the ancient 
and modern Armenian Scriptures. 

Georgian. — The Georgian version, which, according to the tradition 
of the Greek church, was originally made in the eighth century, by 
Eaphemius, the Georgian, and founder of the Ibirian or Georgian Monas- 
tery, at Mount Athos, employs the word, nathlistemad, as a translation 
of baptidzo. For the meaning of this word, I have no access to the appro- 
priate lexicons, but would refer the reader to the authority of the learned 
Mr. Robert Robinson, author of " The History of Baptism," who states 
that all the ancient eastern versions render the Greek word baptidzo in 
the sense of dipping. — See Rob. Hist. Bap. p. 7. London, 1790. 

Coptic. — The Coptic was the ancient dialect of Lower Egypt. During 
the first ages, the Christian Scriptures were read by the churches of 
Egypt, in the original Greek. The Coptic version has been supposed by 
some to have been executed in the second century. This, however, is not 
certain. The learned Louis Picques in Le Long, Biblioth Sac. pars. i. p. 
287, refers it to the fifth century. This version translates baptidzo by 
tomas. For the meaning of this word the reader is referred to the authority 
of Mr. Robinson, as above; and also to that of the Baptist Mission Com- 
mittee, who in a recent official document addressed to the Committee of 
the British and Foreign Bible Society, and relating to 'the subject of trans- 
lations, expressly mention the Coptic as rendering baptidzo in the sense of 
immersion — See Annual Report of the Eng. Bap. Miss. Society, for 1844, 
p. 32. 

SaiAdic. The Sahidic version, or that in the dialect of Upper Egypt, 
af)pears, from the arguments adduced by Dr. Woide, to have been exe- 
cuted at the beginning of the second eentuiy. It is unquestionably one 
of the oldest versions in existence ; and is esteemed of the utmost import- 
ance to the criticism of the Greek Testament. This version I have not 
seen. For the mannei* in which it renders baptidzo, the reader is referred 
to the authority of Mr. Robinson, as above. 

Arabic— There are several Arabic versions of the New Testament, 
supposed to have been principally executed between the seventh and elev- 
enth centuries, after this language had supplanted theSyriac and Egyptian. 
There are Ukewise more modern translations into this language. The 
Arabic versions render baptidzo usually by amad, tzabag, or gatas. 
"Amad," according to Schindler, " signifies the same in Arabic as in 
Syriac, baptizatus, in aquam immersus, tinctus, lotus fuit;" to baptize, 
immerse into water, dip, bathe ; Castell, ''ut Syr. baptizare," the same 
a^ the Syriac, to baptize; Schaaf, ''tinxit baptizavat," to dip, to baptize. 
" Tzabag," according to Castell, is " tinxit^awem imbuet (Isa.lxiii: 4), im- 
mersit mawwm m a^wam, baptizavit (perimmersionem) ;" to dip, as bread 
in sauce, to dye, to immerse, as the hand into water, to baptize by immersion. 



476 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

'' Galas," according to Schindler, is "natavit, urinavit, mersit, submersit, 
immersit, sub aquam, baptizavit;" toswin, to dye^ plunge^ submerge^ immerse 
into water ^ baptize. 

If, therefore, these lexicographers are to be trusted, Elder 
Ditzler is evidently mistaken in supposing with respect to the 
Syrian amad^ that the signification "to immerse," is unsup- 
ported by the analogy of kindred languages. 

Persian. — Ttie Persian translations of the New Testament are all quite 
modern. The most ancient is the one by Simon Ibn Joseph Al Tabrizi, 
a Roman Catholic, made about A. D. 1341, and including only the four 
GosjDels. — See Le Long, Biblioth. Sacr. Pars i, p. 269. Another version of 
the Gospels, by Lieut. Colonel Colebrooke, was published at Calcutta in 
1804. A version of the entire New Testament in Persian was completed 
in 1812, by Meer Seyd Ali, under the superintendence of the late Rev. 
Henry Martyn, which was subsequently printed at Petersburg, Calcutta 
and London. The Persian designates the ordinance of baptism by shas- 
tanah, ghusl, and the deTiY Site of aynad. The two former express a6/M^iow; 
the last has the same meaning in the Persian as in the Arabic. 

Turkish. — A Turkish version of the New Testament, by Dr. Lazarus 
Seaman, was published at Oxford in 1666; and in the same jesiv a trans- 
lation of the whole Bible into the Turkish language was completed by 
Albertus Boboosky, interpreter to the Porte. This manuscript remained 
at Leyden unpublished, till Dr. Pinkerton, having ascertained its value, 
recommended it to the British and Foreign Bible Society, at whose ex- 
pense the New Testament was published in 1819. This version designates 
the act of baptism by the derivate of amad, the same word that is used in 
the Arabic and Persian, and expressing the same sense. 

Taetar. — The Orenberg Tartar, published a few years since by tlie 
Russian Bible Society, and which is the only Tartar version I have seen, 
translates the word in question by a7nad, followmg the Turkish and the 
Arabic. 

Hebrew.— *The first Hebrew version of the New Testament was macj;; 
by EUas Hutter, and pubhshed in his Polyglot New^ Testament in lo^*'>. 
Several versions have since appeared. Hutter' s version, as well as tiw 
one by the learned Mr. Greenfield, accompanying Bagster's Polyglot, 
renders baptidzo invariably by iaval^ to immerse. The version executed for 
the London Society for meUorating the condition of the Jews, transfers 
the Greek word. 

Ancient and Modern Western Versions. 

Latin. — ^Numerous translations of the Scriptures were made into the 
Latin language, at the first introduction of Christianity, while the Greek 
was yet perfectly understood, although it was being gradually supplanted 
as a general language. The most important of these, and the one which 
appears to have acquired a more extensive circulation than the rest, was 



Mode of Baptism. 477 

usually known by the name of the Itala^ or old Italic, and was unques- 
tionably executed in the early part of* the second century. This version 
adopts the Greek word baptidzo. Let it be remarked, however, that the 
Greek, although the Latin was gradually supplanting it, was at this time 
understood and used as a general language over Italy, Persia, Syria, and 
Egypt, and indeed throughout almost the whole world.* Add to this, 
that the earliest ecclesiastical writers, and perhaps the very authors of 
this version, were of Greek origin. Under these circumstances, it cannot 
be thought surprising that this word should have passed from one lan- 
guage into the other. Its meaning, however, was as definitely settled and 
as well understood in Latin, as in Greek usage ; and the construction that 
they employed shows most conclusively that it was accepted in the sense 
of immersion ; for in some of the most important MSS. that remain of 
the Italic version, as the Codex Vercellensis, and Codex Veronensis, the 
verb in question is often, and in the last-named Codex almost invariably, 
construed with the accusative case. E. g. Matt. 3: 6, cod. Vercel. "et 
baptizabantur * ■■ ab illo in Jordanen;" cod. Veron. " et baptizaban- 
tur * * * ■''" ''■ danen ;" mid were baptized by him into the Jordan ; v. 11, 
cod. Veron. "baptizo vos in aquam;" I baptize you into water: v. 13, cod. 

* "L' usage de la langue Grecque, qui etoit repandue chez toutes les na- 
tions, les rendit d'abord moins necessaires. On lisoit le originaux du 
Nouveau Testament presque dans tons les lieux du monde. Les Eveques 
de Rome etoient souvent Grecs d'origine, comme on'le connoit aisement 
par leurs noms, et leur langue etoit devenue fort commune en Italie. Les 
Perses, les Syriens, les Egyptiens, entendoient cette langue, depuis que 
les Captaines d'Alexandrie, le Grand I'avoient repandue. Origine, Clem- 
ent d'Alexandrie, Denys, Theophile Cyrille, Eveques de la ville d'Alex- 
andrie, en un mot, les grands hommes que FEgypte produse dans les 
premiers siecles, ecrivoient tons en Grec. Cette langue avoit passse 
jusques chez les Getes etles Sarmates, quoi qu'on I'y prononcat tresduro- 
ment: c'est Ovidequi nous en assure." — Basnage, Hist. del'Eglise, 1, 9, 3. 

"The common use of the Greek language which had been so generally 
diffused among all nations, made it a matter of little importance whether 
[in translating the Scriptures into the vernacular, particular words were 
transferred or translated]. For in almost every country throughout the 
world, the people were able to read the New Testament in its original 
tongue. The Bishops of Rome were often native-born Greeks, a fact 
which their names very readily attest ; their native language, moreover, had 
veiy generally diffused itself throughout Italy. The Persians, the Syrians, 
and the Egyptians had cultivated the Greek tongue from the time of the 
Captains of Alexander the Great, who first introduced it. Origen, 
Clement of Alexandria, Denys, Theophilus and Cyril, Bishops of the City 
of Alexandria — in a word, those distinguished men that Egypt produced 
in the first centuries — all wrote in Greek. This language had reached, 
even as far as the "Getes" and the Sarmatians who, it is said, pronounced 
it very harshly : it is from Ovid that we learn this fact." — Basnage, Hist. 
<J the ChuTch, 1-9-3. 



478 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Veron. " Tunc venit Jesus a Galilsea ad Johannen ut baptizaretur ab eo in 
Jordanen ;" ihencai^e Jesus from Galilee to John, that he might be bapHzed by 
him into the Jordan. Compare also John i, 26, and Mark i, 5. See Evan- 
geliarum Quadruplex, ed J. Blanchini, Rome, 1749. Nor can it have es- 
caped the notice of the intelligent reader, that the Latin Fathers were ac- 
customed to use baptidzo synonymously with mergo, tingo, etc. Thus 
TertuUian, De Bap. c. 10, quoting Matt. 3: 11, represents John as saying 
that he dipped [tinguere] the people unto repentance, but that one should 
come after him, who would dip [tingueret] them in the Spirit and fire. 
Now TertuUian, in quoting the Evangelist's words, could not have sub- 
stituted tingo for baptidzo^ unless the two words had been synonymous. 
Indeed, Prof. Stuart, p. 362, acknowledges that the Latin as well as the 
Greek fathers, plainly construed baptidzo in the sense of immersion. Tt 
appears, then, that the early Latin translators and ecclesiastical writers 
adopted this word, because it was already in familiar use, and was as uni- 
versally understood to signify immersion among the Komans, as among 
the Greeks. The Latin vei'sions, therefore, are as decisive for immersion, 
as are the Oriental ones. And, although the Greek language gradually 
fell into disuse aniong the Romans, this word having been once adopted, 
was, as a natural consequence, perpetuated by the general use of the Latin 
Scriptures, and their necessary influence upon the choice of ecclesiastical 
terms, till at length it come to be used to the almost entire exclusion of the 
equivalent vernacular expressions. Almost all the Latin interpreters, 
whether Catholic or Protestant, have followed the earlier translators in 
the adoption of the Greek word. Some of the most recent and best, how- 
ever, translate baptidzo by an appropriate Latin term. Jaspis, anemment 
German scholar and critic, in his version of the epistles, renders it either 
by immergo, to immerse, tingo, to dip, or some equivalent expression. 
Prof. H. A. Schott, in his critical edition of the Greek Testament, accom- 
panied with a Latin translation, renders the word in all cases by immer- 
go, whether relating to the Christian rite or not. 

From these facts, we are authorized to translate baptizare, 
whenever it is used by a lexicographer as the signification of 
baptidzo or amad, by to immerse or to dip. 

Gothic. — The Gothic version was made from the Greek, about the 
middle of the fourth century, by Ulphilas, a celebrated bishop of the 
Moesogoths. As the author was educated among the Greeks, he was un- 
doubtedly fully competent to his task. Unfortunately, however, this im- 
portant version has not come down to us entire. Only a mutilated copy 
of the four gospels, and some fragments of the epistle to the Romans, re- 
main. This version, as far as appears, renders baptidzo in all cases by 
daupyan, to dip. Cases not relating to the Christian rite exhibit the same 
principle. Thus, Mark, vii, 4 is rendered, "And when they came from the 
market, ni daupyad, unless they dip, they eat not ; and many other things 
there be, which they have received to hold, as davpeinins, the dippings of 
cups, and pots, and brazen vessels, and couches." 



Mode of Baptism. 479 

German.— A German translation from the Latin Vulgate, by an author 
now unknown, was first printed in 1466, and underwent several subse- 
quent impressions before the appearance of Luther's inestimable and 
much- admired translation, which was published in detached portions at 
various intervals, from 1522 to 1532. The Catholic versions by Detem- 
berger and Emser appeared soon after that of Luther, and in 1630, that by 
Caspar Ulenburg. All these versions translate baptidzo by Hufen^ a dialect- 
ical variation of the Gothic daapyan, and signifying to immerse. Luther 
says : " The Germans call baptism, tiuff, from depth, which in their lan- 
guage they call ti^ff; as it is proper that those who are baptized be deeply 
immersed."* The author of the " Glossarium Universale Hebraicum," 
referred to above, represents the Ger. taufen as corresponding in form and 
signification with the Sax. dippan, Eng. dip, etc. Gesenius, as already 
quoted above, classes it with the Goth, doufan [daupyan], ItaL tuffare, and 
other words signifying to dip, — and which he considers as identical in re- 
gard to form with the Heb. tava, to dp,, to immerse. Dr. Knapp, Professor 
of Theology at the University of Hajle, speaking of the meaning of the 
word baptism, says: '■'■To baptisma from baptidzein, which properly signifies 
to immerse, (like the German taufen) to dip in, to wash by immersion." In 
another place he says : " It would have been better to have adhered gen- 
erally to the ancient practice, as even Luther and Calvin allowed." See 
Knapp's Theology, translated by L. Woods, Jr., vol. 2, pp. 510, 517. 

German-Swiss.— The version in the German-Swiss, or Helvetic dia- 
lect, originally made by John Piscator, between the years 1602 and 1604, 
and subsequently revised by several divinity professors and pastors of the 
Helvetic churches, translates baptidzo by taufen. The version by Jo. 
Henr. Reizius, first published in 1703, uses taujen in cases relating to the 
Christian rite, explaining it in the margin by eintauchen, the common 
word for immersion. In Mark vii, 4, it translates baptidzo by eintauchen, 
to immerse, and the noun baptismos by eintauchung, immersion ; and so in 
Luke xi, 38. In Heb. vi, 2 and ix, 10, baptismos is translated by taufe in 
all the versions I have seen. 

Jewish-German. — The Jewish-German translation published a few 
years ago by the London Society for promoting Christianity among the 
Jews, likewise uses stauffen in translating baptidzo. 

Lower Saxon. — The Lower Saxon translates the word in question by 
taufen. This version was executed under the direction of John Bugenha- 
gius, and, according to Le Long, was printed in 1524-30 ; but according to 

*' " Primo, nomen Baptismus Grsecum est: Latine potent verti mer>io, 
cum immergimus aliquid in aquam, ut totum tegatur aqua ; et quamvis 
ille mos jam absoleverit apud ploerosque (neque enim, totos demergunt 
pueros, sed tantum, paucula aqua perfundunt) debebant tamen prorsus 
immergi, et statim retrahi. Id enim etymologia nominis postulare 
videtur. Et Germani quoque baptismum, tauff vocant, a profundidate, 
quam tieff illi sua lingua vocant, quod profunde demergi conveniat eos qui 
baptizuntur." Works, vol. i, p. 336. Jena, 1556. 



480 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Home, 1533-4. See Le Long Biblioth. Sac. P. ii, p. 247. Home. Int. 
vol. ii, p. 229. 

Belgian. — A Belgian or Flemish translation made from the Latin 
vulgate, was printed in 1475. Another was executed from Luther's Ger- 
man version, for the use of the Protestants, m 1560. A new translation 
however, was executed from the original, by order of the Synod of Dort, 
and printed in 1637. This translation has been much admired for its 
tidelity. The Belgian versions translate haptidzo by doopen, which is a 
dialectical form oi the word taufen, and signifies to dip. 

Danish. — The earliest Danish version was made from the Latin vul- 
gate. The next was executed from Luther's German version, by com- 
mand of Cliristian III, king of Denmark, and printed in 1550. It was 
subsequently revised and corrected by order of Frederic II, in 1589. The 
version in present use was made from the original Greek, by John Paul 
Resenius, and at the command of Christian IV. It was first published in 
1605-7. See Le Long, Pars, ii, pp. 287, 288. Home, vol. ii, p. 229. The 
Danish translates baptldzo by dobe, which is a dialectical form of the 
Goth, daupyan and the German taufen, and signifies to dip. 

Swedish. — The Swedish version was originally made from Luther's 
German translation, and printed atUpsal in 1541, by the command of Gus- 
tavus I, king of Sweden. This was afterwards revised and conformed to 
the oaiginal text in 1703, by the command of Charles XIL See Le Long, 
Pars, ii, p. 296. Home, vol. ii, p. 230. The Swedish renders haptidzo by 
dopa^ a dialectical variation of lobe, and signifying to dip. 

Welsh. — The Welsh translation of the New Testament was originally 
made by order of Parliament, and first published in 1567. This was re- 
vised and corrected by Wm. Morgan, bishop of Llandaff, in 1588. During 
the reign of James I, the Welsh version underwent a further examina- 
tion and correction by Dr. Parry. This corrected version, which was 
published in 1620, is the basis of all subsequent editions. See Home, vol. 
ii, pp. 258, 259. The Welsh translates baptidzo by bedyddio^ to immerse. 
For the original derivation and meaning of this word, the reader is re- 
ferred to the authority of Edward Lhuyd, A. M., a learned Welshman, 
and a very distinguished antiquarian, in his Archseologia Britannica, un- 
der the word Baptisma. The following is the substance of his remarks : 
'■'■Bedydd^ the Welsh word for baptism, is derived from mddiant^ a British 
word w^hich is well known to signify dipping, or immersion; and the 
verb of which is soddi or suddo. The word for baptism in theCornn- 
British dialect, is bedzhidhian {bedsuddian)^ the affinity of which, with the 
Welsh word suidmnt^ must be obvious to every one. This Cornn-British 
word bedsuddian, points out the origin of the Armorican word for baptism, 
badudhiant^ {badudHiant}^ which is doubtless no other than badsuddiant, 
whose correspondence or synonymy with the Welsh word suddiant is 
equally clear and certain with that of the aforementioned Cornn-British 
word, l^y a comparison of these Ai-morican and Cornn-British words, 
we are led unavoidably to conclude that badsuddiant^ or badsuddiant^ must 
luive been the original word for baptism in the British language, and that 



Mode of Baptism. 481 

from which the present Welsh word hedydd sprung. In time, this ancient 
British word, hke many others in all languages,' underwent some change 
by abridgment or contraction. It was originally hedsuddiant or badsud- 
diant] and whatever may be said as to the precise meaning of the prefix, 
the word itself unquestionably signified immersion ; for the word suddiant 
has always amounted to that as fully as any word in any language could 
possibly do." See Article Baptisma, in Lhuyd's Arch. Brit. Comp. Vocab. 
ed. 1707; or a translation of the same, in Dr. Richard's answer to Rev. B. 
Evans on Baptism, pp. 16, 17, ed. 1791. 

ScLAVONiAN. — The Sclavonian or old Russian translation of the 
New Testament was made from the original Greek in the ninth century, 
by the two brothers Cyril and Methodius. It was first printed in 1570. 
The Russians, being a branch of the Greek church, practice immersion in 
jdl ordinary cases ; but the ceremony of making the sign of the cross upon 
the candidate in connection with immersion, had come to be regarded in 
the time of Cyril and Methodius, as the more important ceremony of the 
two, and absolutely essential to the ordinance. Hence, among the Rus- 
sians this rite is technically designated from the "crossing," and not from 
the " immersion." Their version therefore, does not in fact translate bap- 
tidzo at all; but substitutes the term krestit, to cross; as Matt. iii. 5, 6, 
' ' Then went out to him Jerusalem and all Judea, and all the region round 
about Jordan, and were crossed by him in Jordan, confessing their sins," 
V. 11. etc. "I indeed cross you," etc. This is greatly to be regretted; for 
such a technical designation of the rite banishes entirely from view the 
ordinance of Jesus Christ, and substitutes in its place a tradition of men; 
and every version constructed upon this principle, though not in the least 
degree hostile to immersion, not only sanctions, but is calculated to per- 
petuate a piece of gross superstition and folly, that had its birth among 
the early corruptions of the man of sin. [This meaning of krestit is stated 
upon the authority of a Russian gentleman, whose education and rank 
are a sufficient guaranty for its correctness.] 

Russian. — As the Sclavonic is no longer understood among the com- 
mon people, a translation of the Scriptures into modern Russ was made 
by M. Gluck, a Livonian clergyman, and printed at Amsterdam in 1698. 
As the Russian language has undergone considerable changes since that 
time, the Emperor Alexander in 1816, directed the Synod of Moscow to 
prepare a new translation. The New Testament was accordingly com- 
pleted in 1822. See Home, vol. ii, p. 266. The modern Russian employs 
krestit, in the same manner as the Sclavonic. Several other nations in 
northern and eastern Europe, which are related to Russia either by lan- 
guage or religion, appear to have constructed their translations upon a 
similar principle. 

3. Eld Ditzler goes back again to the Sjriac. He says 

nothing that I need reply to. I refer all to my treatment of 

the subject in a former speech. 

The Syrians always, from the first, immersed, and their de- 
30 



482 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

scendants do still immerse as do all the Oriental Christians, 
and this settles the whole matter. The words they applied to 
the act, must mean the act they performed, unless, as with the 
Germans a change of the rite can be proved. 

4. He returns to taval (Hebrew) again, and makes Schind- 
ler, and Stokius, and Leigh, say that taval means primarily 
"to moisten," when they give tinxit, intinxit immersit "to 
dip." "to dip in," "to immerse," as its real physical sense, and 
Faustianus, whom Dr. Beecher quotes as undoubtedly using 
tingere in the sense of " to dip," my opponent makes him say 
" to sprinkle ! " I only mention this to express my — I cannot 
say astonishment, after my knowledge of his treatment of 
Schleusner and Stokius, for I can no longer be astonished at 
what he is capable of doing — indignation at such palpable 
perversion, accepted as learning by his people who do not 
know the language. 

5. This rehash of Furst's philological fancies is simple nonsense. 
This is not the place to discuss the question, what is the true 
root of taval^ tab, or halt For lack of better material, he enter- 
tained you with a controversy between Gesenius and Furst ! 
It is simply an insult to your understandings, and 1 pass it. 
Whether the root of taval be tab^ or hal^ the verb was never 
used by the Jews in any other sense than " to dip," " to im- 
merse," to cover all over, and so with haj)tidzo^ whatever its 
root, it never did mean in the Greek language anything else 
than "to dip," "to immerse," to cover all over, and Eld. Ditz- 
ler has never given us the shadow of proof, or authority, save 
his bare word, that it ever did. 

6. I can only regret the persistency with which my oppo- 
nent misstates me. He compels me to be very plain and severe. 
I reaf&rm with emphasis that I have given the testimony of 
forty lexicons, among them all that are considered upon either 
continent standard authorities, and every one gives " to dij:),^' " to 
immerse^'' as the only primary and real signification of baptidzo, and 
I therefore affirm that this is its only real meaning. I again 
reaffirm that the figurative are not the real meanings of the verb. 
It is not true, though an angel from heaven should assert it, 
that " all the great standards give to sprinkle or pour," as a 



Mode of Baptism. 483 

literal meaning of haptldzo. IsTor is it true that one Standard 
Greek Lexicon gives "to sprinkle," or "to pour," as a real lite- 
ral meaning ? Let my opponent produce one, let liim produce 
any author who declares he has ever seen one. I say let him 
now here before you, and before this proposition, bring it 
forward or no longer repeat the misstatement. If he fails to 
do so, he virtually confesses he has stated what he nor any 
other man is able to prove. Baptists are justified in saying 
with Dr. Carson, with Anthon and Stuart, that no Greek 
Lexicon on earth gives any other meaning than "to immerse," 
or its equivalent, as the literal, real signification of baptidzo. 

7. Beza, a Presbyterian, and the first scholar of his age, and 
successor of Calvin, and whom Eld. Ditzler never mentions but 
to misrepresent, says emphatically, " Christ commanded us to 
be baptized; by which word it is certain immersion is signi- 
fied." Neither does the word baptidzo signify to wash except 
by consequence, for it properly signifies to plunge into, for the 
sake of "coloring" or "dyeing." When he makes you believe 
that Beza teaches that baptidzo means "to sprinkle, never "to 
immerse," in the New Testament, he treats Beza as he does 
Schleusner, and his other authors. I refer all to my argument 
from the admissions of eminent Pedobaptist authors, for what 
Witsius, Turrentin, Vossius, Suicer, reall}' do say. 

8. My opponent makes another lame attempt to defend his 
treatment of Schleusner, but still the stern fact stands to con- 
vict him of the bald, palpable perversion of an author, that is 
unprecedented in the annals of controversy. He says that 
I, forsooth, in the year 1868 left out the very words he sup- 
pressed. It is true I did, but I did not jyiit a palp)able falsehood, 
into the lips of the author. I did in no sense misrepresent 
Schleusner's primary definition of baptidzo nor its use in the 
New Testament, but Eld. Ditzler makes him say that in the 
sense of "to dip," "to immerse," it is never used in the New Tes- 
tament^ AND Schleusner does not say this. This is the single 
issue, and this I have proved. No scholar can or ever will 
question it. 

Eld. Ditzler, to make his author testify against Baptists, ac- 
tually suppresses a part of A SENTENCE, where the unfinished 



484 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

part is a reference to another verb. Sometimes translated by 
baptidzo, having another sense than taval generally has in 
which sense this latter, baptidzo, is never lised in the ISTew Tes- 
tament — says Schleusner — but Elder Ditzler, by suppressing 
this part of the sentence makes him say in the sense of taval 
to immerse it is never used in the ^N'ew Testament ! ! 

I know that this must be settled by scholars ; those acquaint- 
ed with Greek and Latin. And so confident am I that no 
scholar can, or ever will question the construction I have giv- 
en, that I am willing for it to go to the record. Schleusner 
never did say what Eld. Ditzler makes him say, that baptidzo, 
in its primary sense of to dip, to immerse, is never used in 
the Kew Testament, but he did say, that in the sense 
that taca is used in the passages refererd to — to drown, to 
sink down so as to perish, it is never used in the ITcw Testa- 
ment. 

By a statement in his last speech. Eld. Ditzler has clearly 
discovered his real ignorance of the notation of the Psalms al- 
luded to by Schleusner. He says; ^'^ow it so happens that 
in Psalm ix. 6 James' ^destructions' are named as coming 
on the people." The place in our version where this tabha oc- 
curs is Psalm ix. 15 ! l!^ow, I have had nothing to do with his 
Psalm ix. 6, nor ix. 15, nor are these the passages Schleusner 
REFERS TO ; and Eld. Ditzler, it appears, knows no better !! Every 
scholar knows that the notation of the Psalms in the Hebrew 
and Septuagint do not correspond with our English version, 
and it would have been well for Eld. Ditzler to 
have sought some information on that subject before 
talking about my blundering into a ditch. In the Hebrew, 
the motto of the chapter is recited for the first verse. Hence 
Psalm ix. 6 quoted by Schleusner isix. 7, which my opponent, 
not knowing, of course has not examined, but he tells you he 
finds "destructions" in the sixth verse, and declares that I look 
at that as tabha! ! Who is in the ditch here? In the other 
Psalm quoted as Ixviii. 5 in Schleusner, it should be Ixix. 2 to 
correspond with our version and the Hebrew. The tenth and 
eleventh Psalms were united in the Septuagint so that Psalm 
xii. became xi., etc., and thus Psalm Ixix. of Septuagint is 



Mode of Baptism. 485 

Psalm Ixviii. of our version. The figure 5 in Schleusner 
is evidently a misprint, for 3, and 3 of the Hebrew cor- 
responds to verse 2 of our version. TahoMe is the Hebrew 
word in this verse, which signifies to sink deep. The verb at 
the close of the verse translated overflow, means to sweep 
away as with a flood of rushing water. Here is a sense in 
which Schleusner wishes to say tha^t baptidzo is never used in 
the 'New Testament. 

So of Psalm ix. 6 (Heb. 7) the Hebrew word translated by 
baptidzo in the gloss of the unknown writer is derived from 
shuha which signifies to settle down — as Proverbs ii. 18, her 
house sinks down shuhah into death (el maveth). In this sense 
the great Schleusner wishes to say and does say in his lexicoii 
that baptidzo is never used in the Hew Testament, but Ekl. 
Ditzler, by suppressing an important and explanatory part of 
ii sentence forces him to say, that in its proper signification, 
of to dip, to immerse — answering to taval in 2 Kings v. 14, 
where Naaman dipped himself in the Jordan — it is never used 
in the New Testament! Let these facts go to the record and 
be decided by the verdict of impartial scholarship with the 
facts respecting Stokius. 

Touching Hermas and Barnabas. They are placed in the 
First Century by standard writers who refer to them. I have 
no time to discuss the matter. I referred to their testimony,, 
touching the act of baptism in their day, whether they lived 
in the First or, as Eld. Ditzler claims, in the Second Century. 
Though their style is highly metaphorical, yet no man can im- 
peach their testimony as to the act of Christian baptism — it 
was by immersion only, in their day. 

As the Elder is so hard upon Hermas because of this testi- 
mony, and upon me for introducing them as belonging to the 
First Century, I will inform him what his own church teach- 
es about them and when they lived. I read from Bater's Church 
History, published by the M. E. Church, who places them in 
the First Ceistury, and says : 

"The Pastor of Hermas is generally allowed to be genuine, and it is also 
]vobable that it was the work of that Hermas who is spoken of by St, 
Paul, though some have ascribed it to a certain Hermas, or Hermes, 
brother to Pius bishop of Bomej who lived in the sixecetidiiig century. 



486 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The work is entirely allegorical, consisting of visions and similitudes. 
Like all works of this nature, it is extremely unequal as a composition, 
and I confess but Uttle satisfactory to my judgment. It was however in 
high estimation in the early ages, and is spoken of as Scripture both by 
Irengeus and Tertullian. "■•■'— Ruter's His. of the Church, p. 39. 

It is 110 matter whsft my owii private opinion may be, this is 
wiiat his. Eld. Ditzler's, church holds and teaches, and what 
it is his duty to believe. 

Should I attempt to reply to his description of baptism in 
TertuUian's day, I feel that I should insult the good sen-se 
of this audience. Any one who can believe what be says 
about it — well, I will say there is nothing too monstrous or 
absurd for the faith of such an one. iTever have I tseen the 
manifestations of such recklessness of statement as my oppo- 
nent is exhibiting as this proposition is drawing to a close. 

It has been brought to light, that Methodists have a spurious 
edition of Wesley's ]!^otes on the Gospel, which they circu- 
late extensively, in which Wesley is served as Eld. Ditzler 
serves Schleusner, a pari of a sentence heiug suppressed, and ac- 
cording to the statement of Eld. Ditzler, he never saw a cor- 
rect edition of Wesley's Kotes until his debate with Mr. 
Wilkes I Rev. J. R. Dempeey, Ky., (why did he not give the 
P. 0. ?) should produce that spurious edition, and let the world 
know who got it up, if his church by her Book Concerns did 
not, let us know who did. I call for the book. 

13. He still insists that Leigh deiin es baptidzo to mean to sprin- 
kle. I can only refer you to his testimony given under lexi- 
cal authorities — that's the unvarnished testimony of Leigh 
whatever Eld. Ditzler may say. 

14. My opponent says that "in points almost innumerable he 
has exposed me" — i. e. misquoting and misstating authors. 

Mr. President, the rules by which we are governed, forbid 
my replying to this statement as it deserves. I will content 
myself with this — when my accuser rises again let him specify 
just one instance, or let his silence convict him of stating what 
he knows to be false. I challenge him to point out one in- 
stance where I have misquoted, mistranslated or misrepresented 

*DePud. 10. 



Mode of Baptism.. 487 

an author in this discussion. I am determined these state- 
ments to my detriment shall not go upon the printed page un- 
challenged — harsh as it may appear in me. He says whenev- 
er he has corrected me, I have stood corrected — let all see who 
will stand corrected now — stand self-corrected by his own si- 
lence. 

Elder Ditzler makes a square issue with me before you, 
touching the proper signification of the Heb. verb taval^ for you 
see he is back again upon taval; he don't say all he has to say 
when he is on a subject, and then leave it, but he flies back 
and forth to it like a weaver's shuttle. » 

He says '^ taval occurs sixteen times, [a mistake of one,] in 
the Bible and not in a single instance does it put the object under 
any element.'' Now it happens that everyone can decide be- 
tween us on this issue — to the law and the testimony. 

1. Lev. iv, 6, and the priest shall dip, taval, his finger in the 
Uood,'' while the finger was in the blood was it under or within 

any element? I think a child can answer. 

2. Lev. xiv, 6, " and shall dip, taval, the living bird in 
the blood of the bird that was killed over running water etc." 

Eld. Ditzler presumes to say that the bird God commanded to 
be dipped in this blood and water, "had not its head, wings 
and tail even touched with t^ie blood " ! ! Who told him so ? 
Buxtorfi*, Stokius, Leigh, Schindler and every lexicon of the 
Hebrew language tells him that the literal and true meaning 
of taval is to dip, to dip in, immerse. If Moses obeyed the 
command he did dip the entire bird into the blood of its slain 
fellow mixed with water, and every Jewish commentator 
declares that nothing less than an entire dipping would meet 
the requirements of the law and that it was accustomed to be 
done. The Misnah says that the very wings to the extreme 
tips and the tail were to be so bound as to be dipped into the 
blood and water. * 

So much for his statement of a plain fact. Then let the 
devout Christian consider the requirements of the type. It 
required two birds to represent the work of Christ as two goats 

* Ebr. Concord, part p. 64 No. 318. 



488 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

were requisite preparatory to the day of atouement to typify 
Christ as tiie sauctifier and Sin-bearer of his people. One 
goat was burned without the camp to typify the satisfaction 
that Christ w^as to make to the divine law for sin, and the 
scape-goat, on which the sins of the people were laid, was sent 
away into the wilderness to signify that Christ was their Sin- 
bearer, to bear away their sins from them forever. 

So was the slain bird a type of Christ, and of his shed blood 
and the Living bird dipped in blood and water was a type of 
Christ bathed in his own blood and sufferings — not a few drops 
slightly touching some parts ofhim,but a complete immersion, 
an overwhelming in them. Christ compared his sufferings 
and death to a baptism — literally immersion, w^hen he said •' I 
have an immershm to undergo and how am I straightened until 
it be accomplished, Luke xii, 50. The living bird must have 
been wholly immersed iii the blood and water, to have been a 
type of Christ suiiering in his whole nature, body and soul, that 
he might when release«l, bear our sins away from us as far as 
the east is from the west." To say there was no more than an 
eggshell full of the water and blood, is simply irreverent — there 
must have been sufficient spring-water taken in the vessel for 
the immersion of the entire living bird with the cedar wood 
and hyssop, or the command could not have been obeyed, nor 
the rite have been a type of Christ. 

3. The third instance is in the 51st. verse of same chapter, 
and refers to the same ceremony — the living bird was certainly 
by the verb taval put under, or within the element. 

4. " The fourth place where taval is used is in ]^um., xix, 
18 : " And the clean person shall take hyssop and dip it into 
the water." Had the Jews taken water and sprinkled it upon 
the bunch of hyssop, they would have violated the law. There 
was an immersion here, 

5. The fifth instance is in Ruth., ii, 14 : ^' And Boaz said 
unto her at meal time, come thou hither and eat of the bread 
and dip thy morsel in the vinegar." Adam Clark admits the 
act to have been an immersion. He sa3's : " Vinegar,'^ a kind 
of acid sauce used by the reapers to dip their bread in, which 



Mode of Baptism. 489 

both cooled and refreshed them." They dipped that they 
might soak their bread in the sauce. 

6. The sixth instance is in Ex. xii, 22. "And ye shall take 
a bunch of hyssop and dip it into the blood." The bunch, or 
head of the hyssop bough was dipped into the blood, not the 
blood sprinkled upon it. 

7. The seventh occurrence of taval is in Deut. xxxiii, 24. 
" And let him dip his foot in oil." Here the foot of Asher 
was to be immersed in, not simply touched, moistened with — 
oil, indicating abundance, the latter act would have indicated 
scarcity. 

8. The next instance is in Ezek. xxiii, 15 : " Exceeding in 
dyed attire." Here King James' translators have rendered 
taval by dyed — the effect for the cause — while the Holy Spirit 
says dipped attire, which indicates that their attire had been 
dipped in order to color it. 

9. The ninth instance is found in Job, ix, 31 : " Yet shalt 
thou plunge me in the ditch," As a thorough defilement is 
indicated here, he must have been wholly covered with the 
filth of the ditch. 

10. The next occurrence of taval is Lev. ix, 9 : " And he 
dipped his finger in the blood." ThQ finger here, not the hand 
or body, must have been introduced into the element bloody 
which was an immersion of the part named. 

11. The next we meet with is in 1 Sam., ix, 27 : " And 
he [Jonathan] put forth the end of his rod, that was in his 
.hands, and dipped it in the honeycomb." He did not dip 
the whole rod, but the end, of it, and was not the end intro- 
duced within the element, honey ? 

12. 2 Kings, v, 14 : " Then went he [I^aaman] down and 
dipped himself seven times in Jordan." 

Eld. Ditzler now declares that the prophet violated God's 
law for the purification of leprosy if he commanded Naaman 
to dip in the Jordan " ! " that the law was " He shall sprinkle 
upon him that is to be cleansed from leprosy seven times, and 
shall pronounce him clean." He assumes then that the pro- 
phet commanded him to go and sprinkle himself seven times 



49° The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

into the Jordan ! aud that Kaaman did so, but never dipped 
himself into its waters once ! I will say that I have met with 
temerity and recklessness in disputants before, but never with 
the equal of this! Let his be the glory or the shame of 
being the lirst man, known to me, who ever denied, with the 
inspired record staring him in the face, that could not, in He- 
brew or G-reek, more clearly express the act of immersion — 
that Naaman went down and dipped himself in the waters of 
the river Jordan ! I refer all to what I said in my sixteenth 
speech on this case, and I have nothing to modify. I pass 
this case, calling your attention to a discussion of an authority 
infallible with my opponent. In his debate with Mr. Wilkes, 
vrhen considering the case of Judith, Eld. Ditzler declared 
that the force of the Greek forbade the idea of immersion in 
the case, since the text was '' epi tes peges '' at the fountain. 
Mark his words, "were it imm^erse, it would at least be, eis ten 
jyegen, accusative case with eis into, not epi at," p. 483. 

Kow in the case of I^aaman the Greek text is precisely as 
he says it should be to indicate an immersion. '^ JEbaptizeto 
eis ton Jordanen^^^ and now he scouts the idea of an immersion 
in the passage ! 

But he offers an issue and I meet it squarely — i. e., that by 
spHnkling alone the purification of leprosy could be consummated. 

To make out his case, he treats God's word as he does 
Schleusner, gives but part of the law ! He gives only the 7th 
verse of Lev. xiv. Kow read the 8th : 

"And he that is to be cleansed, shall wash himself in water ^ that he 
may be clean; and after that he shall come into the camp, and shall tarry, 
abroad out of his tent seven days. But it shall be on the seventh day that 
he shaU shave all his hair oQ. his head and his beard, and his eyebrows, 
even all his hair shall be shorn ofl ; and he shall wash his clothes, also he 
shall wash his flesh in water, and he shall be clean." 

Does this look as if a simple sprinkling of himself seven 
times with water, was all the law required? Is a part of the 
truth the truth ? Is not, in the language of law, suppressio 
veri, suggestio falsi f 

I have quoted Dr. Alting, Dr. Me3^er, Kitto and Maimon- 
ides, to show that wherever rachats was used to denote the 
washing of the person, or the "flesh" of a person, that it in- 



Mode of Baptism. 491 

dicatecl an entire immersion, and that in the law, where the 
clothes were required to be washed, it called for an immersion, 
not only of the clothes, but of the body of the person, to complete 
the cleansing". The prophet commanded him to bathe himself 
seven times, and the Hebrew text says he tavalized, dipped ; 
and the Greek text says he baptized, immersed himself; but 
Eld. iJitzler declares in the face of both, and of all authorities, 
that he only sprinkled himself! It is useless to reason. Then 
he says that " it is [was] a physical impossibility for him to 
have dipped himself — in the sense of dipping the whole per- 
son; for he would be fully shoulder deep, or quite so, ere he 
could or would dip!" 

I will not answer him according to his folly — but ask him 
for the sake of others — for his brethren are chargeable with 
the same puerility all over our land, when G-od command- 
ed the priests to dip their feet in the Jordan, was it a physical 
impossibility? Did they not dip them by stepping into the 
water until they were covered by it? Then JSIaaman dipped 
the lower part of his body by wading into the river and the 
rest of it by immersing it under the water. 

I have, I fear, only dignified his objections by noticing them. 
Let us look at the remaining places where taval occurs. 

13. Second Kings viii. 15. "He took a thick cloth and 
dipped it in water and spread it on his face so that he died." 
A child would not question that the cloth was indeed dipped 
into the water, and before it was taken out, it certainl}^ was 
within the element. 

14. Gen. xxxvii. 31. "And they took Joseph's coat and 
killed a kid and dipped the coat in the blood." The Greek 
version says, dyed it, but dyeing is the eff^ect of the dipping. 

15. Josh. iii. 15. "The feet of the priests that bore the ark 

were dipped in the brim of the Jordan." Were not their 
feet within the element water, in this case ? If there is 
another instance it does not now occur to me. 

!N"ow against his position I submit these fifteen cases, in every 
one of which a clear instance of immersion is indicated, that you 
may decide from them what reliance you can place upon his 



492 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

assertion that "m not a single instance does 'HavaV put the object 
muler any element.'^ 

You have just heard Eld. Ditzler assert that the three mill- 
ion Israelites stood still in Jordan ! To show you with what 
accuracy he reads 1jlie word of God, for it would be in viola- 
tion of courteous debate to charge him with an intentional per- 
version of it — I will read the whole passage in which the ex- 
pression is found. 

'*And thou shalt command the pnesi^s that bear the ark of the Covenant 
[four of them] saying. When ye are come to the brink of the water of 
Jordan, ye shall stand still in Jordan." Josh. iii. 8. 

In verse 17 any one can see how the priests obeyed. 

IN'ow, if Eld. Ditzler thus unblushingly perverts the word 
of the God of heaven and earth, what are you not warranted 
to believe he will do with the productions of men ? It is in 
this way he has treated his lexicons and authorities, so that I have 
been forced all along into constant impeachments of his honor 
and fair dealing. He scarcely speaks five minutes without 
being guilty of this very thing. Why, sir, in the next breath 
after saying that the thirty thousand stood still in Jordan, he 
tells you emphatically that " eis ton Jordanen does not occur in 
Mark i. 9 as I say it does but in verse 5 ! " Must I let this pass 
unnoticed, and so stand convicted of error? — for not one in 
one thousand who read our debate will turn to look for them 
selves, but will take his word. He tells you that I have stated 
what was not so when I stated that eis ton Jordanen^ occurs in 
Mark i. 9 

InTow, Mr. President, what must you think when I tell you 
that the phrase eis ton Jordanen occurs nowhere else in the 
I^Ew Testament, except where i said it does in Mark i. 9 ! ! 
Let every Greek scholar pause and examine for himself. The 
motive that could induce Eld. Ditzler to deliberate! v make 
such statements, I cannot conceive. I will not here charge 
him with mistaking as to a matter of fact, for he could not 
mistake it, but I do charge him with boldly misstating a plain 
matter of fact. 

My time does not permit me to notice and expose man}' oth- 
er similar statements — the scores of similar statements — that 



Mode of Baptism. . 493 

marked the rest of his speech, by which he seeks to break the 
force of my argument and put me in a false light. I must 
trust the rest to the record, knowing that the fairminded reader 
will examine what I have said, and not my opponent's repre- 
sentation of my position and statements. 

Eld.Ditzler asks with great emphasis if I do not know that 
Dr. Gotch is the President of Bristol College, England, as 
though this was proof of a misstatement, when I said he was 
an Episcopalian. It is only a proof of the statement of Dr. 
Stock of England, that our brethren over there were filling 
their colleges with Pedobaptists to the great detriment of the 
denomination. Dr. Gotch is an Episcopalian, nevertheless, 
unless he has changed his views lately. 

He sees fit, for present eftect I suppose, to flatly contradict 
my statement that according to the Jewish Rabbins, where 
rachats is used with reference to washing the flesh or the clothes, 
the immersion of the whole bodv is meant. Well, so distin- 
guished a scholar as Dr. J. Alting (Presbyterian), says : "The 
verb irdhatz or (rachats), he washes, is frequently used either 
alone or with the addition of the word flesh, and the whole 
flesh, which is baptism, ***** whence the Jews observe 
tliat whenever a command occurs for washing the clothes, the 
washing of the whole body is either added or .understood." — 
Opera, Tom. iv. com. in Epis. ad. Heb. p. 220. 

He declares to you that ''no Rabbi on earth says so." Was not 
Maimonldes a Rabbi? Davenport says of him, — "one of the 
most celebrated of the Jewish Rabbis who is called the ' eagle 
of the doctors' and 'the lamp of Israel,' was profoundly versed in 
languages" and in all the learning of the age." Is he notcom- 
l)Gtent to testify, and will the simple word of my opponent 
sifiice to impeach him? What does he say? "Wherever 
washing of the flesh and washing of the clothes are mentioned 
in the law, nothing else is meant but the dipping of the whole 
body in a confluence of water ; and that if he dip his whole body 
except the tip of his little finger, he is still in his uncleanness 
etc." "No mode is required" says my learned friend ! There 
is nothing but mode required — a dipping of the whole bodj- ! ! 

He also questions my reference to the Syriac in two in- 



494 The Great Carrolltox Debate 

stances (1) Born, vi, 4. Here he talks iucoherently about the 
present preterite teuse of the verb — that was not the point I 
made, but the expression ^'' descended into the baptistery J'' 

His other instance is Hebrews vi. 2, a i:)assage I hace in no 
way referred to ! How safely he could say, " ^Ye deny that 
the Syriac reads that way ! '"' The other passage I did refer to, 
in the Syriac Version, was Hebrews ix. 13, to show him that 
the Syriac sustained my canon, i. e., that wherever the verbs 
to sprinkle, or to pour, took an indivisible object as a direct 
accusative, the preposition on, or upon, must be understood; 
but whenever the expression was not elliptical^ the preposition 
on, or upon, was expressed. He demands the Syriac and I 
will give the Syriac. If he will examine the thirteenth verse, 
instead of "sprinkling the unclean," as in our version, itis,ra5 
al, sprinkled on the unclean, i. e., the bhiod and water was 
sprinkled, and not the persons. If he will look at the nine- 
teenth verse, it is not "sprinkle both the book and all the 
people," but ra.s el^ sprinkled upon the book and all the people; 
and again, in the twenty -first verse, the preposition is repeated 
before both nouns — the tabernacle and vessels. 

Here time compels me to close my replication. From 
these numerous instances which I have exposed, you must 
certainly be convinced that the statements of my opponent 
cannot be relied upon when he quotes from his authorities, ©r 
even the Word of God, to support his cause — much less when 
he states the positions of his opponent. — \_Tirne out.'] 

Note. — By permission of Elder Ditzler, I give here a note received 
fi'oni Prof. Drisler, of Columbia College, Xew York — the American editor 
of Liddell & Scott's Lexicon — for the information of all. It was received 
since the close of the debate : 

New York, February 9, 1876. 
J. R. Graves, LL. D : 

Dear Sir : — Soon after the appearance of the American edition of Lid- 
deU & Scott's Greek Lexicon, changes were made in relation to the article 
baptidzo, which I never saw. Rev. Dr. Duncan, an Alunnius of our 
College, and at the time editor of the Southwest Baptist Chronicle ( I 
think) of New Orleans, even before consultmg me, denied the truth of 
any intentional alteration to suit any personal or sectarian views. Li re- 
ply to a request from him, I stated what I here repeat to you : that the 
article baptidzo stood in the American Lexicon, as it was given in the 



Mode of Baptism. 495 

first English edition from which it was printed ; the fi.rst half of the lexi- 
con having been set up before the SQCond edition was received. In this 
second edition the whole article is as follows : 

Baptidzo, Jut. idso ( bapto) to dip repeatedly ; of ships, to sink them, 
Tolyb. 2, 51, 6, etc. Pass, to bathe, Eubul. Naus. 1 ; hoi behaptis- 
menoi, soaked in wine, Lat. mno madedi, Plat. Symp. 176 b; ophlemasi 
bebaptisthai^ over head and ears in debt, Plat. Galb. 21 ; meirakion bcq)- 
tizo7nenon, a boy drowned with questions, Heind. Plat. Euthyd. 277 D. 
2. to draw water. Plat. Alex. 67, cf. bapto. 3. to baptize. New Testament. 

You will see that here the significations '' to steep," "to wet," and "to 
pour upon," " drench," are omitted. I had no theory to maintain which 
should pervert the proper signification of the word, nor had the publish- 
ers ; and I niade no change in the article, as it stood in the English copy. 

In the last English edition the article is given as follows : 

Bapfizoo fut. ioo, to dip in or underwater, Aristoph, pMloon , of ships, 
to sink them. Poly. 2, 51, etc. 

Ebaptisan teen polin^ Metaph. of the crowds who flocked into Jerusalem 
at the time of the seige, Joseph. B. J. 4, 3, 3 . Pers. hoos ek tou bebaptis- 
tfiai an anapneousi Hippocr. 5, 242 (Littr'e): to bathe, Eubal. nausik 1; Me- 
taph. bebaptismenoi^ soaked in wine, Lat. vino madedi, Plat Sj^mp. 176 
B ; ophlemasi bebaptlsthai^ over head and ears in debt, Plat. Galb. 21 ; gnous 
bapizomenon to ineirakion seeing him drowned with questions, Herod. Plat. 
Euthyd. 177 D., 2 phialais baptidzein ek krateroon to draw wine from bowls 
in cups (of course by dipping them). Plat. Alex. 67, cf. bapto I. 3. III. 
to baptize, N. T. Eccl. 

Tiie above statement meets I trust, your entire question. 

Yours very respectfully, 

H. DEISLER. 



496 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S EIGHTEENTH REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — As to Schleusner, we again ask 
the gentleman what did we suppress in the Louisville Debate? 
Only two Hebrew words and the three passages cited by 
Schleusner, but not quoted or defined. He quarrels with us 
here for quoting Hebrew, there he complains because we did 
not quote enough Hebrew when solely on Greek. But as we 
showed : 

1. I read that part at Louisville — all, but neither I, nor my 
opponent, took the very unscholarly and absurd view of it that 
Dr. Graves does. We know that leaving out the references 
changed not Schleusner's meaning. 

2. Dr. Graves always left out the same, and so did Elder 
Wilkes, A. Campbell, Ingham, and all. 

3. By Dr. Graves' absurd interpretation of Schleusner's 
lexicon, he makes him say positively that baptidzo never means 
" immerse " in the New Testament. That, we showed, in a 
former speech. 

4. To do this, he mistranslates et (and), changes the punctu- 
ation, and thus garbles the author. 

5. We showed that Dr. Graves left out all this part that 
now is so important, and left out the word "pour," and that 
was the issue — did it ever mean pour ? and quoting Schleusner 
he leaves that out, and declares in the same article that none 
of these authors gives sprinkle or pour ! How does that look? 
Nay, quotes Passow among those who do not give " sprinkle 
or pour," though he gives " sprinkle " twice, and '' pour upon" 
under baptidzo — yea, as the general meaning. Schleusner be- 
lieved it was not modal in force, and applied to all our modes 
— sprinkle, pour, immerse — and used only in New Testament 
in sense of wash, cleanse, as applied to the rite of baptism. 
Hence, baptisnios was " washing, purification, cleansing — lotio, 
purgatio, ahlidio'' — and the firf=t definition of the other noun is 



Mode of Baptism. 497 

baptism, then immersion, etc. As to hac it refers to the defi- 
nition he gave — immerse, dip, plunge — as one in meaning. 
A child could see that. Selden says, " sive haec, sive ilia" — 
Lund, ii, 780, as often writers do, not regarding classic usage 
— utterly destroy this little conceit also. The more the Doctor 
says, the more he exhibits the fact, that in interpreting old 
Latin Fathers and writers, he is handling edged tools with 
which he is not familiar and gets cut. He has not learned 
that primitive does not mean first, even. He will learn by 
examination that Paul, Heb. vi. 2, uses the plural form of the 
word baptisma, the word in noun form for baptism in the l^ew 
Testament. Doctrine of baptisms — they were plural. Why, 
by his position there were three in the apostolic church, and 
two continue yet, aside from the Spirit, as the baptism with 
fire he makes hurling them into hell — so baptism with water 
and into hell still continues, that makes two. Eph. iv. 4, one 
baptism refers distinctly to the oneness of spiritual influence. 
One baptism — that by which all are " born together in the 
[spiritual] likeness of his death," all thus "baptized into one 
body by one spirit." — 1 Cor. xii. 13, a baptism, a circumcision, 
" made without hands." — Col. ii. 11-12. 

Tertullian's words are on record. For baptize, he uses these 
words : 1. Baptidzo, tingo, adspergo, perfundo, lavo, mergo, 
mergito. That crushes Dr. Graves. Does he use mergo several 
times? He uses adspergo and its noun four or 'R.ve times 
(sprinkle), and on difierent occasions, as well as perfundo, 
sprinkle, while his mergito looks to three dips and a world of 
superstition. I need not waste time re-quoting on tingo. Ex- 
cept Ainsworth, who does not give dip nor immerse, and does 
give sprinkle, all the standards give tingo, ^' moisten," " wet," 
as the first meanings, and equivalent to three Greek words, 
tengf>, applied to tears, and deuo brecho, applied to tears and rain 
mostly in all Greek — often in the Bible — and hugraino, 
" sprinkle with water," from hudor, water, and raino, to sprinkle. 
ITow, a word that all the standard lexicons, even his own lying 
there, thus define, he declares is " synonymous with bapto.'^ 
That is just so much aid to us. 

As for Grotius, he was so prejudiced that Wall convicts him 
31 



498 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of gross perversion of the facts, and his opinions on religious 
matters are always to be carefully examined into, ere received. 
He is not reliable on baptism at all. He says when he came 
to Syriac, I went off on Arabic. He stated distinctly that 
amad was the same in both. I held on to both. We know 
the Arabic has this advantage over all Semitic languages. 
1. It is the only one that still lives. 2. It has a vast amount 
of literature, and hence from these two facts we are in no 
doubt or trouble as to the meaning of any Arabic word any 
more than over an English or German word. It is the main 
aid here, as all Oriental critics agree. I used the Arabic and 
Syriac together from the first. 

As to Anabaptists, they were so called because they re-bap- 
tized all who joined them from the other party. These mat- 
ters belong to future propositions. 

He says, Tertullian says, "some say it will do," that is, sprink- 
ling. I^othing of the kind. He is discussing whether the 
twelve apostles were baptized. " Others make the suggestion, 
forced enough, clearly, that the apostles then served the term 
of baptism when they, in their little ship, were sprinkled," 
etc. We read it all before. N^ow why did they recognize^ 
i:his(aZzY) others — leading theologians in that day— in trying to 
find out where the apostles were baptized — if baptism was im- 
mersion — how on earth could they suggest, and say, here is 
when they were immersed — the day they {adspersi) were 
sprinkled, when the storm dashed the waves against the little 
ship, and the spray flew over themf But Dr. Graves says not 
this, and he does say that. We say Tertullian here shows that 
in his day sprinkle was as readily and promptly recognized as 
baptism as mergo three times repeated. Nor did the Doctor 
give my quotation at all ! It is strange how he does turn and 
twii^^'^. 

Finally, on lexicons m Latin. You notice they all, save 
Furst, begin with tingo, or tabhal, and with immersit generally. 
Now, the same is the case with more accurate ones on bapto, 
though they do not end with immerse so habitually. Now, 
these same lexicons on words that do properly mean to im- 
merse in Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, always begin with ^'immersit." 



Mode of Baptism. 499 

Od tabha^ that does mean to immerse, and they all use immerse 
promptly every place it occurs in the Bible. But we have 
eleven encyclopedias, all favoring the one or two he quoted. 
Indeed ! Did he tell you how those works ar? generally gotten 
up? Did he tell you an imraersionist wrote that article? 
Baptists watch the water question all the time. In others of 
them, men are hired to write, do it for a living, turn off all 
the matter they can. We have never deemed one of them 
worth looking into on this question, where close, laborious 
pains are demanded. 

He brings up the Catholics. Now does he not know that 
they have used that question most unfairly ? I admit he can 
quote from Bossuet and a few Catholics of that stripe, sen- 
tences favoring his side. But 

1. He ought to know that they wrote those false statements 
solely and alone to encourage the fanatical Anabaptists, to in- 
flame their zeal, animate their courage, and stimulate their 
passions, that civil war might desolate England and Germany, 
and give civil powers the pretense, and the Pope with them, 
of suppressing and exterminating Protestantism. The Bap- 
tists boast their want of sympathy with Protestantism. They 
avow themselves not Protestants. So do these Baptist books 
I have here. ]!^ow, it was the cunning of these priests to urge 
on to extremest excesses these Anabaptists, encouraging them 
in many ways, as they had no fear of them, as the learned and 
steady Presbyterians and Independents were the parties in 
England, the Lutherans in German}^ that they dreaded. So, 
likewise, in England, in the civil wars in the seventeenth cen- 
tury, Catholic priests, with authority from Rome in their boots, 
were taken, pretending to be extremest Independents in 
Cromwell's day, so as to drive Protestants into every excess, 
that re-action might come on, and the Catholic House of 
Stuart restored, which actually did take place, 1660. But 

2. While their praise is shame, no intelligent Catholic will 
tell you that they claim that the Catholic church asserts the 
right to change the ordinance in the sense you assert it for 
them. Archbishop Kendrick, of Missouri now, whose work 
on baptism I have examined, urges that Paul, Luke, Mark, 



50O The Great Carrollton Debate. 

etc., in the- I^ew Testamout nse baptidzo and its nouns for 
affusion, and argue ou it as M. Stuart, Wall, Alford, and 
others do, that it is used there for sprinkling and pouring. 
He quotes the Fathers on through centuries to the same pur- 
pose, from the earliest reliable ones on. IN'ow how could the 
Catholic church assert the right to change as you represent 
them, when they hold sprinkling, etc., to be apostolic ? ]N"ow, 
they simply mean this, the church holds all three modes us 
apostolic. She holds that as immersion became the mam 
mode throusrh what we call the dark as^es, she had the rio:ht 
to change the practice to affusion, as both were Scriptural in 
her estimation. . . ...... 

- ' • ' • 

So Wall, etc., held that either was Scriptural. In both 
volumes here before us Wall proves to his own satisfaction 
that baptidzo and its nouns were used, Hebrews ix. 10, Mark 
vii. 4, 8, Luke xi. 38 — e. g., Judith xii. 7, Serach xxxi. 24, 
(35, 24 English of Eccles.) for baptism by sprinkling, that it 
applied to affusion as well as dipping, in the ]N'ew Testament. 
We can read it if you deny. ]^ow, how could such men 
believe as you represent in the face of these facts? It is true 
Wall animadverts on Calvin, and deplores the small amount 
of water used in baptizing ; but he proves that baptidzo applied 
in the New Testament to sprinkling most pointedly. It is true 
also that Wall, as a zealous churchman, believed that but for 
Presbyterian influence, the mode of dipping would have kept 
Baptists from leaving the Episcopal church. He was, as many 
" churchmen" were, willing to compromise, dip still, as for 
centuries they had done, if Baptists would agree to infant 
baptism, and so strengthen the establishment. All these 
feelings entered in, with a goodly hatred of Calvin and Pres- 
byterians, whose influence was so much greater than that of Bap- 
tists'. They hoped to placate the Baptists, not Presbyterians. 

It is a poor show to have to fall back on such crotchets to 
aid the cause that is so dear to Baptists. 

Now", sir, we call your attention prominently again to this 
point. We are nearly through with five days' debating on 
the mode of baptism. He told us the first day that it was a 
reproach to Christ, or to us, that this discussion should have 



Mode of Baptism. 501 

to take place, as if discussion diet not exist on pardon, rog^ii- 
eration, church government, etc., as well as baptism; and 
surely they are of more importance in our eyes. Now we 
assert, just the course he has pursued is the cause of all this 
strife and trouble on baptism. How has he met the pmut&vve 
have brought up? Why, he tells you J was two days in th^ 
lead. I knew that, I was a whole century ahead for that 
matter. He has dashed here, run yonder, and what has be 
accomplished? He began with philology himself, a solid hour 
spent, and only about three, if over two, minutes in adducing 
anything on baptism, three authors, one a Baptist, two of 
them out and out immersionists, that ended his speech, run- 
ning over time, five minutes. We accepted the laws of inter- 
pretation, but not his wa}^ of applying by a great deal. We 
relied on philology, to settle the meaning of baptidzo e^'e we 
made application, just as workmen dress a stone all to the 
square, then fit it in its place. We expected beautiful work 
here. But me! when he saw my mailed Greeks, a Spartan 
band, in serried ranks bristling along the whole front of his 
works, to our utter surprise, he spiked his own cannon, and, 
with all his forces, made the swiftest time on record for Jor- 
dan and Enon. We soon overtook him there. He took his 
stand on en and eis, planted himself on them. But he slipped 
up on eis, and lost en in the struggle. We showed that they 
settled nothing at all. Eis occurs often in Bible Greek, even 
where verbs of motion occur, where water and Jordan 
occur, and yet simply means to, at, on. Kuhner, than whom 
a greater critic on Greek never lived, tells us eis is to 
express "in the direction whither." " In general, ( it is used) 
to denote the reaching a definite limit. Buttmann : eis, to, into, 
in answer to whither." Liddell and Scott's lexicon tells him 
its "radical signification is direction towards, motion to, on, or 
into." 

Scripture shows this to be true, as well as classic usage. 
"The sons of the prophets came eis, to the Jordan and cut 
wood." 2 Kings v. 4. We gave a number of passages to 
show this fact. Y-^t he boldly asserts it is into, its primary is 
intOj in the face of every principle of the seieuee of language. 



502 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

You must, to accept his say so, shut your eyes as to facts. He 
appealed to en, and emphatically declared that en was as much 
— as often in in English as in was m in our tongue. We 
quoted many places. Let us repeat some : 

From Exodus xxix. 2, to Num. xxxv. 25, "with oil," in our 
version occurs forty-one times, "mingled with oil/' "anointed 
with oil," the words being interspersed constantly with 
"poured the oil upon," etc. Yet in the Greek it is en every 
time, not once omitting the en^ en elaio, "with oil." See Ex. 
xxix. 2. 40 ; Lev. ii. 4-7 ; ix. 4 ; xiv. 10, etc.; Kum. vi. 15 ; vii, 
13, 19, 25, 31, 37, 43 49, 55, 61, 67, 73, 79; xv. 4, 6, 9; xxviii. 
5, 9, 12, 13, 20, 28; xxxv, 25, "anointed with the holy oil," 
the high priest. This is enough. Xot once do I find it ex- 
pressed even by the simple elaiOy as we might expect, yet every 
time it is en "with." This forever settles the fact, that while 
en, expressive of locality is often equivalent to our in, by, at, 
yet whenever it indicates instrumentality, it is always with. 
But all agree that in the washing and "baptizing with 
water," "with the Holy Spirit,'' locahty is not thought of or 
expressed at all, but instrumentality. We not only see, then, 
that en is perfectly consistent with affusion, as the pouring oil 
forty-one times consecutively shows, and Ezekiel kept it up 
(en), but points to affusion emphatically. 

So likewise in cleansing a house, sprinkling it m to hamiati, 
with the blood of the bird, and en to kudati^with the water, etc. 
People were fed in the cave (en) with bread and water. We 
could cite hundreds of examples. We showed all this, hence 
of course his argument was utterly destroyed. He had, as yet 
proved nothing at all. His wild dash at dative of ityherein and 
where. Why, what had that use of the dative to do here ? It 
was not a question where was the Spirit of the fire with which 
Christ was to baptize the people? nor, where was the water ? 
for he had told us where were the places of baptism. It was 
solely of these elements as the means — -the instrumentality of 
their baptism — loith water, loith the Spirit, icith fire they were 
to be baptized. Even if it had been location it served not his 
cause. People stood still in Jordan, "oame up oUt of Jordan," 
-==— -that Implied thut thov went m. m^o, Jordan, were "iu the 



Mode of Baptism. 503 

midst of Jordan." Joshua iii. 8, iv. 8, 16-21, and Elijah, dwelt 
in ^Ae brook." Cases of this kind are numerous. Hence noth- 
ing is as yet proved. He went to Romans vi. 4, assuming that 
it was water baptism. We showed it was not. He relied 
wholly on the word bury. We showed it was a spiritual burial 
into death to sin — a strong term indicating entire death to sin 
We showed that the term in Greek and English is used in 
Jeremiah, xxii. 19, '-buried with be burial of an ass" — where 
the party was left above ground — no covering up, no inter- 
ment. Hence it proved nothing. He fell back on the word 
plant. We showed that it was never used in Scripture for 
interment, or covering up, the Greek term. It applied to plant- 
ing trees, vineyards, engrafting together, to be born together. 
Hence it was a beautiful allusion to our being engrafted to- 
gether in the death of Jesus — which was crucifixion, not a 
death under the water — and hence, by this we are 
crucified with Christ — always delivered eis into death, 2 Gor. 
iv. 10-12. 

Failing on all points, the Doctor waxed desperate with imag- 
ination, and struck wildly in the air, hoping an awkward, aim- 
less lick would do more execution than studied blows. He 
attacked Furst, Ewing, lexical authorities, and made an assault 
on my use of classic Greek in one, as to dip. But he failed 
here badly. As to attacking the centre of my position, he 
never even made Si feint that w^ay. 

Meantime we made — unchecked — our entire philological 
argument from beginning to end on Greek, as to baptidzo, 
1. The lexicons — all with us, 2. Immersionist authorities of 
highest repute, all bore down on the immersion theory with 
crushing weight, that fearful record of devastating facts he has 
never noticed. 3. We appealed to the classic use and it perfectly 
established sprinkle as the primary meaning of baptidzo. 4. We 
appealed to the laws and principles of language, by the laws 
established to find derivatives and primitives, and they with in- 
fallible certainty, pointed out and demonstrated sprinkle as 
the primary meaning ot' baptidzo. These facts he has passed 
by in silence. We turned to the ancient Versions. These 
have been used by immersionists with great force and persis- 



504 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tent zeal, but we showed they had used them as they had the 
lexicons. They sustained affusion with one voice from apos- 
tolic times to the sixteenth century. Their voice was one 
unanimous and emphatic assertion of affusion as the only apos- 
tolic practice. There was no uncertainty in the sound. It 
was not involved in any kind of doubt. It was emphatic. 

We turned to the Hebrew. 1. The lexicons were a unit for 
us. They at once ranged themselves along with the Greek 
and Syriac lexicons. 2. We appealed to the original text, 
'• the ultimate authority ;" and like the Greek, it sustained the 
utmost of the lexicons. 3. We appealed to the root, the 
stem syllable, that gives the tone, is the key to the primary 
and fundamental sigiiification of the word. It was sprinkle. 

We appealed to the Greek Fathers, Origen, Irenseus, Basil, 
Hippolj^tus, Euthj'mus, Clemens Alexandrinus, all, all sus- 
tained sprinkling as baptism. They supported pouring water 
on objects as modes of baptism. We turned to Tertullian, 
Cyprian, Jerome, Julianus, Augustine, they all supported affu- 
sion for baptism. 

We presented the Laver, we gave its history, dimensions, 
height, uses, laws, all from the Bible. We showed that for 
fifteen hundred years every Jew baptized himself. It was a 
telling record. It goes to mankind in this great debate. It 
was a record for affusion all the way through. Any one of 
the arguments we have adduced defeats the Doctor's proposi- 
tion. He has not met a single one of our arguments. We 
appeal to the record. How crushing, then, how grinding, yea^ 
grinds to powder and thinnest dust, all his arguments, unearths 
every position in which he hid, and leaves him to the pitiless 
force of inexorable logic and the crushing weight of invincible 
truth. 

He attacked Furst, the great German Rabbi, the pride and 
glory of Jewish scholarship, and Leigh, of Leipsic, wnth a bit- 
terness not becoming the Doctor's reputation. If the Doctor 
prefers to live in the learning of the dark ages, or in its mere 
twilight, when the grammars, and lexicons and helps to learn- 
ing were crude and full of defects, he can do so; but to so 
bitterly assail those great thinkers who press on into newer 



Mode of Baptism. 505 

and grander fields, is not the better course. We tell hira now, 
iniraersion will go to the wall. It is doomed. The facts are 
all with us, and all the world cannot meet them. It is only a 
question of time. 

On the contrary, he clung to Liddell and Scott as death to 
its victim. They took him under special charge. Anthon, 
the immersionist Episcopalian, and Drisler worked upthecas^, 
they threw "pour upon" out. It is good now. No, they throw 
" pour" out of his definition of luo^ full brother of baptidzo. 
Xow it will do. No, " dip repeatedly" as a first meaning 
won't do. Out it goes. Now we can rest. No, no ; no im- 
merse in it yet. We must have that in. So they change it 
again. And so they keep on tinkering at it from year to year. 
It shows how one-sided, short-sighted their leaders are, and 
how hard to get right even from their own stand-point. Dr. 
Graves has tried hard to invalidate the Syriac version also. 

But here again he failed. 1. We quoted Drs. Judd, and J. 
E,. Graves, and Gale, three distinguished Baptists, squarely 
against our opponent. 2. We quoted Origen, and the whole 
Oriental church against him, where not a single argument can 
be brought against its apostolicity, but masses can be for it. 
3. We quoted a host of the greatest Oriental scholars, immer- 
sionists and all, who hold that it was made in the apostolic 
age, so early, too,* that the three or four last books written. 
Revelation and Jude — e. g., being written after the Syriac 
version was made, were not in the old Syriac canon. It is 
with these massive volumes of truth that we go before the 
world, and challenge their respect for the mode we prefer, 
because it alone is apostolic— [I^^'me out 



5o6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' NINETEENTH, CLOSING SPEECH. 

Mr President. — I concluded my last speech with the testi- 
mony of the standard historians of the Lutheran church. I 
will now continue with those of the Presbyterian church, the 
CoDgregatiouai, and the Methodist, with the admissions of 
the most learned scholars and commentators of these denomi- 
nations, and conclude my argument with the important testi- 
mony of the cyclopedias, when my proof will all be before 
you, and a brief summary of my argument will close the dis- 
cussion of this proposition on my part. It is by facts, and not 
by declamation, or assertions, that this question must be 
settled. 

Testimony of the Historians of the Presbyterian Church. 

J. (i. Altman (1697-1758), a Swiss historian and divine, 

also professor of moral philosophy and Greek at Berne, says: 

" In the primitive church persons to be baptized were not sprinkled, 
i)ut entirely immersed in water, which was performed according to the 
example of John the Baptist." — On 1 Cor. xv. 29, sec. 8. 

Dr. Philip Schaff Ph. D., born 1819, educated at the Uni- 
versities of Zubingen, Halle and Berlin, professor of theology 
at Mercersburg, Penn., author of History of the Apostolic 
Church, History of the Christian Church of the First ISix 
Centuries, and about a dozen other works of much value, 
says : 

" The usual form (in the apostolic church) of the act was immersion, as 
is plain from the original meaning of the Greek, b ptiz in and ^'ajj' smos.''^ 
"Immersion, and not sprinkling, was unquestionably the original, nor- 
mal form (of baptism). This is shown by the vers^ meaning of the Grt^k 
word baptidzo, Uiptisma^ and the analagy of the baptism of John, which 
was performed in the Jordan (-"), Matt. iii. 6, compare witli 16, also, eis u u 
Jordanen (into the .Jordan), Mark i, 9; furthermore, by the New Testa- 
ment comparisons of baptism with the passage through the Keel Sea, I 
Cor. X. "? with the flood, 1 Peter ii, 21, with a bath, Eph. v, 86, Titus iii, 
5, with a burial and resurrection, Eom. vi, 4, Col. ii. 12; finally, by thtj 
general usage of ecclesiastical antiquity, which was aUacs Iviviers.on, as it 



Mode of Baptism. 507 

is to this day in the Oriental, and also in the Grseco-Russian churches, 
ix)iiring and sprinkling being substituted only in cases of urgent necessity, 
such as sickness and approaching death. — Hist. Apos. Ch.. d. 568. 

J. A. Turretin (1671-1737(, professor of Church History at 

(jreueva, and who published ^ve vols, ou church history, says: 

*' And indeed baptism, was performed in that age and in those coun- 
tries by immersion of the whole body into water." — Com. on Rom. vi. 3, 4. 

P. A. Limborch, a scholar of note and professor of theology 
in the University of Amsterdam, (1670), author of complete 
system of Divinity, History of the Inquisition, Commenta- 
tor, etc., says : 

''Baptism, then, consists in washing or rather immersing the whole 
body into water, as was customary in the primitive times." — Syst. Div., 
3, v., ch. xxvii., sec. 1, on Rom. vi. 4. 

" The apostle alludes to the manner of baptizing, not as practiced at this 
day, which is performed by sprinkling of water, but as administered of 
(dd in the primitive church, by immersing the whole body in water, a 
short continuance in the water, and a speedy emersion out of the water. . 
, . . Baptism is a figure and mark of our spiritual burial, for by that im- 
mersion into water, and continuance under the water, which represents a 
burial, baptized persons express their being buried to sin. — Com. Rom. 
vi. 4. ' 

Let all notice that what Stokius means by '''formerly ^^' is what 
all other Historians mean by "of old," "anciently," "in the 
primitive church,'" and not as Eld. D. may claim, a few hundred 
years ago. 

F. Spanheim, a scholar, and author of a work on Church 

History, w^ho died 1701, says: 

" This rite of immersing and of bringing out of the baptismal waters was 
common and promiscuous in the apostolic age, hence the apostle alludes 
to it as a rite common to all Christians. Rom. vi. 4, Col. ii, 12." — Disput. 
De Bap. pro. Martins p. 16. 

'• To be baptized is denominated by Paul a being buried, according to 
the ancient manner of baptizing ; for immersion is a kind of bmial and 
eanersion, a resuri-ection, to which the apostle alludes Col. ii. 12. So Christ 
being baptized, went up out of the water. Matt, iii, 16. The same is related 
concerning the Ethiopian eunuch, Acts viii. 38." — DubiorumEvang., Pt. 
iii. dub. xxiv. sec. 2. 

" In the primitive church immediately subsequent to the age of the 
apostles, this (immersion) was undeniably the common mode of baptism. 
The utmost that can be said of sprinkling in that early period is, that it 
was, in a case of necessity, permitted as an exception to a general rule. 
This fact is so well established th.a.t it were needless to adduce authorities 



5oB The Great Carrollton Debate. 

in proof of it. . . . It is a great mistake to suppose that baptism by im- 
mersion was discontinued when infant baptism became generally pre- 
valent; the practice of immersion continued even unto the thirteenth or 
fourteenth century. Indeed, it has never been formally abandoned, but 
is still the mode of administering baptism in the Greek church and in 
several of the Eastern churches." 

" The first baptistery or place appointed to baptism of which any men- 
tion is made, occurs in a biography of the fourth century, and this was 
prepared in a private house." — Ancient Christ. Ex., ch. xix., sec. 10. 

Testimony of the Historians of the Congregational Church. 

Dr. James Murdoch (1776-1856), a graduate of Yale College, 
professor of languages in the University of Vermont, also of rhet- 
oric and Church history in the Theological Seminary of An- 
dover, and author of many valuable works and translations of 
various books from other languages, says. 

" The baptisteries were properly buildings adjacent to the churches, in 
wliich the catechumens were instructed, and where were a sort of cisterns 
into which water was let at the time of baptism, and in which the candi- 
dates were baptized by immersion." — Eccl. Hist., vol. i. p. 281. Note 16. 

The recent testimony of Prof. Paine, of the Bangor Theo- 
logical Seminary, I gave in opening my historical argument, 
to which the reader is referred. 

Testimony of the Historians of the Methodist Church. 

Methodists are fully committed to the testimony of Mosheim, 
the great Lutheran Historian, since his history has been re- 
published in this country for years by their Book Concerns, 
and it is made the historical text-book for their young minis- 
ters. Mosheim, we have seen, says, without qualification, 
that in the first and second centuries baptism was adminis- 
tered by the apostolic and primitive churches by a total im- 
mersion of the believer in water. Sprinkling, with infant 
baptism, salt, chrism, the cross, sponsors, etc., that crept in in 
the third and fourth centuries, were innovations. 

Gregory & Ruter's history appeared in 1833. Martin Ru- 

ter was the President of Augusta College. 

First Century. " The initiatory rite of baptism was usually performed 
by immersing the whole body in the baptismal font, and in the earlier 
periods of Christianity was permitted to all who acknowledged the truths 



Mode of Baptism. 509 

of the Gospel, and promised conformity to its laws."— Gregory & Ru- 
ter's Chm-ch History, p. 34. 

Second Century. '* Baptism was publicly performed twice a year. 
The catechumens (or probationers for baptism) assembled in the church 
on the great festivals of Easter and Whitsuntide ; and after a public declar- 
ation of their faith, and a solemn assurance from their sponsors that it 
was then' intention to live conformably to the Gosp-1, they received the 
sacrament of baptism. This rite was performed by ti.iee immersions, and 
the body was divested of clothes. In order to preserve decency in the 
operation, the baptismal font of the women was separated from that of 
themen, and they were as much as possible attended by the deaconesses 
of the church. Baptism by aspersion was permitted to the sick ; and in 
oases where a sufficient quantity of water for immersion could not be pro- 
cured. The sign of the cross was made use of in this rite ; and a solemn 
prayer was uttered on consecrating the baptismal water. Confirmation 
immediately succeeded the performance of this rite." — Gregory & Ruter's 
Church history, p. 53. 

The reader will notice that the single immersion was the 
only act known in the first century, and that trine immersion, 
practiced by those churches that were lapsing into the apos- 
tasy, came with other and manifold innovations, and Tertul- 
lian confesses it was more than the Scriptures required. 

An abridgment of this history was published in 1840 by the 
i^orthern Book Concern, New York, under the name of Ou- 
ter's Church History, which continues to be one of the Socie- 
ty's standard publications. Kow, all mention of how baptism 
was administered in the first century is suppressed! Why? 

Under the second century I find this: 

'' Baptism was publicly performed twice a year. The candidates for 
this ordinance assembled in the church on the festivals of Easter and 
Whitsuntide; and after a solemn declaration of their faith, and an assur- 
ance that they renounced the pomp and vanities of the world, and that they 
were determined to live conformably to the Gospel, they received the 
sacrament of baptism. This rite was administered without the public 
assemblies, in places prepared for the purpose, and was performed by an 
immersion of the whole body in the baptismal font. (Mosheim's Eccl. 
Hist. ) It was also performed by aspei^sion or sprinkling. The sign of the 
cross was made use of in this rite, and a solemn prayer was uttered on 
consecrating the baptismal water." — Ruter's Church History, p 41. 

It will be seen that authority is given for the practice ol 
immersion, but none for the unwarranted assertion that it was 
also performed by aspersion or sprinkling. Hut this act orig- 
inated with those who invented " signing with the cross," 



5IC The Great Carrollton Debate. 

"consecrating the baptismal water/' "sponsors," "god- 
fathers," which Ruter admits were human inventions. 

Argument from the Testimony of Cyclopedias. 

I now produce a body of unsectarian witnesses, the encyclo- 
pedists. Religious cyclopedists I will reject, for they are secta- 
rian, and therefore liable to be prejudiced. Literary and scien- 
tific, or national, cyclopedias are more likely to be unbiased by 
partisan zeal. What do they say of the meaning ofbaptidzo and 
the practice of the primitive churches ? 

1. The Edinburgh Encyclopedia says : 

"In the time of the apostles the form, of baptism was very simple. 
The person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel, with the words 
which Christ had ordained, and, to express more fully his change of char- 
acter, generally assumed a new name." 

"It was not till 1311 that the legislature in a councU held at Bavenna, 
declared immersion or sprinkling tx) be indifferent." "In this country 
(Scotland), however, sprinkling was never practiced in ordinary cases 
before the Reformation. From Scotland it made its way into England, 
in the reign of EUzabeth, but was not authorized by the estabhshed church. 
In the Assembly of Divines, held at Westminster in 1643, it was keenly 
debated whether immersion or sprmkling should be adopted ; twenty-five 
voted for sprinkling, and twenty-four voted for immersion ; and even that 
small majority was attained at the earnest request of Dr. Lightfoot, who 
had acquired great influence in the Assembly." 

Speaking of ancient baptisteries, it says : 

"Baptistery, in ecclesiastical writers, a place in which the ceremony of 
baptism is performed." "Baptisteries were anciently very capacious; 
because, as Dr. Cote observes, the stated times of baptism returning but 
seldom, there were usually great multitudes to be baptized at the same 
time, and then, the manner of baptizing by immersion, or dipping under 
water, made it necessary to have a large font likewise." 

2. Brand's Cyclopedia says : 

"Baptism (Greek, bapto^ I dip), was originally administered by immersion, 
which act is thought by some necessary to the sacrament." 

3. Chamber's Cyclopedia says : 

"Baptism, in theology formed from the Greek baptidzo, or bapto, I dip^ 
or plunge." "Some are of opinion that sprinkling, in baptism, was begun 
in cold countries. It was introdicced into England about the beginning of the 
ninth century. ' ' 

4. I^ational Cyclopedia : " The manner in which the rite 
was performed appears to have been at first by complete im- 



Mode of Baptism. 511 

mersion." In regard to the early custom of the English 
church, it says : " It was the practice of the English, from the 
beginning, to immerse the whole body." 

5. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes the process of 

changing from the primitive custom. It says ; 

" Several of our Protestant divines, flying into Germany and Switzer- 
land during ttie bloody reign of Queen Mary, and returing home when 
Queen Elizabeth came to the crown, brought back with them a great zeal 
for the Protestant churches beyond the sea, where they had been sheltered 
and received ; and having observed that at Geneva, and other places, bap- 
tism was administered by sprinkling, they thought they could not do the 
church of England a greater service than by introducing a practice dic- 
tated by so great an authority as Calvin." 

6. Rees' Cyclopedia says of baptism: "In primitive times this cere- 
mony was performed by immersion.' 

7. Penny Cyclopedia. — "The manner in which it was performed appears 
to have been at first by immersion." 

8. Encyclopedia Metropolitan.— " We readily admit that the literal 
meaning of the word baptism is immersion, and that the desire of resort- 
ing again to the most ancient practice of the church, of immersing the 
body, which has been expressed by many divines, is well worthy of being 
considered." 

9. Encyclopedia Americana. — "Baptism (that is, dipping, immersing, 
from the Greek baptidzo), was usual with the Jews even before Christ." 
" In the time of the apostles, the form of baptism was very simple. The 
person to be baptized was dipped in a river or vessel with the words which 
Christ had ordered, and to express more fully his change of character, 
generally adopted a new name." 

10. The Encyclopedia Ecclesiastica says : 

' Whatever weight, however, may be in these reasons, as a defence for 
the present practice of sprinkling, it is evident that during the first ages 
of the church, and for many centuries afterward, the practice of immer- 
sion prevailed." 

Here is the testimony of ten literary and historic standards, 
the ablest and most trustworthy in our language. They were 
not written for sectarian purposes, to defend anybody's dogma, 
nor in the interest of any party or sect, but as scientific, 
literary and historic standards for all classes, parties and 
peoples, aiming only at facts, truth. They all agree as to the 
practice of the apostolic church, corroborating just what all 
the dictionaries assert, that baptism was immersion. They 
also tell us that sprinkling was gradually introduced, first in 



512 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the case of the sick who could not leave their beds, and that 
in from one thousand to thirteen hundred years after Christ, 
it came into general use in Germany, France and Great 
Britain. Can we rely upon their testimony? If not, upon 
whose testimony can we rely? Ought not their testimony 
alone to be conclusive ? 

Argument from the Testimony of the Most Eminent Pedobaptists. 

Beckman. — " Baptism, according to the force of its etymology, is im- 
m.ersion, and washing, or dipping." — Exercit. Theol., Exercit xvii. 

BucANUS. — " Baptism, that is, immersion, dipping, and, by consequence, 
washing. Baptistery, a vat, or large vessel of wood, or stone, in which we 
are immersed, for the sake of washing. Baptist, one that immerses, or 
dips." — Inst. Theol., loc. xlvii., quaes, i. 

Zanchy^ — "Baptism' is a Greek word, and signifies two things; first, 
and properly, it signifies immersion in water, for the proper signification 
of baptidzo is to immerse, to plunge under, to overwhelm in water." — Opera 
torn. vi. 

ViTEESTGA — "The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in 
water. This expresses the force of the word." — Aphor. Sane. Theol. 
Apho. 884. 

HosPiNiAN — "Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word it is 
certain immersion is signified." — Hist. Sacr. b. ii. c. i. p. 30. 

Vossius — ^^Baptidzein, to baptize, signifies to plunge. It certainly signi- 
fies more than epipoladzien,^^ etc. — Dispu deBap. Disp. i. thes i. Also, bap- 
tism " is done by a trine immersion " 

"That the apostles immersed when they baptized there is no doubt." 
— Disp. on Bap.Dis. i. I 6. 

Magdeburg Centuriators — "The word baptidzo , to baptize, which 
signifies immersion into water, proves that the administrator of baptism 
immersed, or washed, the persons baptized in water " — Cent. i. b. ii. c. iv. 

Ikenius — "The Greek word haptismos denotes the immersion of a thing, 
or a person, into something, either with a view to expiation, or for wash- 
ing and cleansing " — Disser. Philol. Theol. Disser. xlx. 

Deylingius — " The word baptizesthai, as used by Greek authors, signi- 
fies immersion and overwhelming Thus we read in Plutarch {bapiison 
seauton eis thnlassan), Dip yourself in the sea, like as Naaman (in 2 Kings 
V. 14) who baptized himself seven times in Jordan, which was an immer- 
sion of the whole body. So Strabo." — Obs. Sac. pars iii. obs sec. 2. 

Gurtlerus — "To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to im- 
merse, to dip ; and baptism is immersion, dipping. The thing com- 
manded by our Lord is baptism — immersion in water." — Inst. Theo. cap. 
xxxiii. sec, 108-115. 



Mode of Baptism. 513 

Reiskius. — "To be baptized signifies, in its primary sense, to be im- 
mersed." 

Bishop Bossuet. — " To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all 
the world.-' "It is certain that St. John the Baptist baptized no other 
way than by dipping — and his example shows that to baptize a great 
number of people, those places were chosen where there was a great deal 
of water." — See Stennett's Answer to Russen, p. 174. 

Walrus. — " The external form of baptism is immersion into water, in 
the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." — Enchiridium 
p. 425. 

Dionysius Petavius, speaking of the church's pretended 

power to alter or to impose, says : 

"And indeed immersion is properly styled haptismos, though at present 
we content ourselves with pouring water on the head, which in Greek is 
ceilled perichusis.^^ — Dogm. Theol. 1. iii., depeni., cap. i., sec. 11. 

Cattenburgh. — "In baptism the whole body is ordered to be im- 
mersed." — Spicil. Theol., 1. iv., c. Ixiv., sec. ii., 22. 

This is what I maintain. If baptidzo signifies to sprinkle 

upon, then the whole body is to be sprinkled or poured upon, 

and not the head or face only. 

BuDDEUS — "The words haptidzein and baptismos are not to be interpreted 
of aspersion, but alwaysof immersion." — Theol. Dogm. 1. v., c. i., sec. 5. 

Bishop Taylor teaches that Scriptural baptism is " not sprink- 
ling, but immersion, in pursuance of the sense of the word in 
the commandment and the example of our blessed Savior." 

Tyndale. — " The plunging into water signifieth that we die and are 
buried with Christ, as concerning the olde life of sinne, which is Adam : 
and the pulhng out againe signifieth that we rise againe with Christ in a 
newe hfe." — Obe. of a Chris. Man, p. 143, edi. 1571. 

SeLiDEN. — "In England of late years I ever thought the parson baptized 
his own fingers rather than the child." — Works, vol. vi. col, 2008. 

Dr. Owen — "The original and natural signification of the word baptidzo 
imports to dip, to plunge, to dye." — In Dr. Ridgeley's Bod. Div., ques. 
clxvi. 

Dr. Whitby — "Baptism, therefore, is to be performed not by sprink- 
ling, but by washing the body." — Com. on Matt. iii. 16. 

Dr. Porson — " The Baptists have the advantage of us, Baptidzo signi- 
fies a total immersion." (The substance of a conversation with Dr. New- 
man.) See Dr. N. on Baptism, p. 20. 

EsTius (Roman Catholic and Chancellor of the University of Douay). — 
"The immersion and emersion performed in baptism are a kind of repre- 
sentation of death and resurrection." — Com, on the Epis., on 1 Cor. xv.29. 

Arnoldi (Roman Catholic). — "Baptidzein^^o immerse^ to submerge. It 
32 



514 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

was, as being an entire submersion under the water, since washings were 
already a confession of impurity and a symbol of purification, the confession 
of entire impurity and a symbol of entire purification." — Com. on Matt, 
iii. 6. 

G. Bird — '' It can scarcely be disputed that immersion of adults is the 
only form of baptism of which we find any traces in the Scriptures." — On 
the Angl. Church, p. 69 

Sholz — "Baptism consists in the immersion of the whole body in 
water — On Matt iii, 6 

Fritsche — "That baptism was performed, not by sprinkling, but by 
Immersion, is evident not only from the nature of the word, but from 
Rom. vi. 4." — Com., on Matt. iii. 6. 

AuGUSTi — "The word * baptism' according to etymology and wsa^re^ signi- 
fies to immerse, submerge," etc. 

Rheinhard — " In sprinkling, the symbolical meaning of the ordinance 
is wholly lost." — Ethics, vol. v., p. 79. 

Dr. Chalmers — "The original meaning of the word baptism is immer- 
sion." — Lect on Rom. vi, 4. 

Meyer — "Immersion, which the word in classic Greek, and in the 
New Testament, everywhere means.' — Com. on N. T., on Mark vii. 4. 

Olshausen — "The elements of repentance and regeneration, united in 
the sacrament of baptism, and prefigured by immersion and emersion (see 
Com, at Rom, vi, 3, etc,,) were separate from one another in the latter 
practice of the church when infant baptism came into use " — Com,, on 
Acts XV i, 14, 15 

Dr. Stier — "The perfect immersion is not accidental in form, but mani- 
festly intended in the haptidzein eis.^^ — Words, etc , vol. viii, p 306. 

CONYBEARE AND HowsON — "It is necdless to add that baptism was(un- 
less in exceptional cases ) administered by immersion, the convert being 
plunged beneath the surface of the water to represent his death to the life 
of sin, and then raised from this momentary burial to represent his resur- 
rection to the life of righteousness. It must be a subject of regret that the 
general discontinuance of this original form of baptism (though i^erhaps 
necessary in our northern climates) has rendered obscm'e to popular appre- 
hension some very important passages of Scripture." — Life and Epistles 
of St. Paul, vol. i., p. 518. 

Archb. Sumner — ' 'John was baptizing, i. e. immersing in water, those 
who came to him for this purpose, 'confessing their sins."' — Exp. Lee, on 
Johni., 19-28. 

Neander — "John's followers were entirely immersed in the water." 
— Life of Christ, p. 55. 

Dr. Lange — "John administered the rite of submersion." "His idea 
of repentance exceeded, in the outward requirements of the Mosaic law, as 
much as his rite of immersion did that of sprinkling. " And were baptized, 
immersed, in the Jordan, confessing their sins. Immersion was the symbol 
of repentance. According to Meyer, repentance was symbolized by im- 



s 

\ 



Mode of Baptism. ^ 515 

mersioii, because,etc." — Com. on Matt. vol. i., pp. 113, 115, 118. Clark's ed. 
Contrast this honest statement of Dr. Lange with an appar- 
ent appeal to ignorance on the import of a Greek word, by my 
opponent. 

Dr. Alfoed — "The baptism, of proselytes was administered " "by im- 
mersion of the whole person." "It is most probable that John's baptism 
in outward form resembled that of proselytes." — Gr. Tes. on Matt. iii. 6, 

Bp. Browne — "The language of the New Testament and of the primi- 
tive fathers sufficiently points to immersion as the common mode of bap- 
tism. John the Baptist baptized in the river Jordan (Matt. iii. j; Jesus is 
represented as 'coming out of the water' after His baptism (Mark i. 10). 
Again, John is said to have baptized in Enon because there was much 
water there (John iii. 23; see also Acts viii. 36)." — In Dr. W. Smith's Die. 
of the Bible, Art. Bap. 

All these are Pedobaptists, and I could add as many more, 

did time permit. Certainly the testimony of any one should 

many times out- weigh the bare assertions of my opponent. 

Argument from the Conjoint Testimony of the Fathers of the Reforma- 

tlon and of Methodism. 

On this wise, Calvin comments on John iii, 22,23: 

" It is probable that after the feast, Christ came into that part of Judea 
which was in the neighborhood of Enon, a town situated in the tribe of 
Manasseh. In that place the evangelist says there was much water {"qua; 
mult(B) which did not so generally abound in Judea. Geographers state 
that these two towns, Enon and Salim, were not far from the confluence 
of the Jordan and Jabbok, near which they place Scythopolis. Moreover, 
from these words [John iii. 22, 23]we may learn that John and Christ ad- 
ministered baptism by the submersion of the whole body (totems corporis 
subniersione) .^'^ 

"And Philip commanded the chariot to stand still; and they went 
down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch ; and he baptized 
him." 

Looking into Calvin's commentary on this verse we see that 

he explains thus : - 

"From this verse we clearly see what was the rite of baptism among 
the ancients ; for they were accustomed to immerse the whole body in 
water {totum corvus in aguum). At the present time (sixteenth centuiy) the 
practice has gained ground for the minister only to sprinkle water on the 
body or head." "The very word baptize, however, signifies to immerse; 
and it is certain thai immersion was the practice of the ancient church.'" 

ZUINGLE. — ^^Into His death. When ye were immersed [intingeremini] 
into the water of Baptism, ye were ingrafted into the death of Christ— 



5i6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

that is, the immersion {intinctio] of 3^our body into water was a sign that 
ye ought to be ingrafted into Christ and his death, that as Christ died and 
was buried, ye also may be dead to the flesh and the old man — that is, to 
yourselves. — Anno, on Rom. vi. 3. 

Luther. — "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, 
as when we immerse something in water that it may be wholly covered ; 
and, although it is almost wholly aboUshed (for they do not dip the whole, 
children, but only pour a little water on them), they ought, nevertheless, 
to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out, for that the 
etymology of the word seems to demand." The Germans call baptism 
tauff, from a depth, which in their language they call tieff", because it is 
proper those who are baptized be deeply immersed." 

In the Smalcald Articles, drawn ap by Luther, he says: 

" Baptism is nothing else than the Word of God with immersion in 
water," 

And again he says : 

" Washing from sins is attributed to baptism ; it is truly indeed attrib- 
uted, but the signification is too soft and slow to express baptism, which is 
rather a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, 
I would have those that are to be baptized to be altogether dipped into the 
water, as the word doth sound, and the mystery doth signify." 

John Wesley (1703-1791), the noted preacher, scholar, 
author, and founder of Wesleyan Methodists in 1729, says ; 

" Bm'ied with him, alluding to the ancient manner of baptizing by im- 
mersion. — Note on Rom. vi 4 

" The ancient manner of baptizing by immersion is manifestly alluded 
to here "—On Col. ii. 12. 

In his Journal for Georgia of February 21, 1736, he says : 
" Mary Welch, aged eleven days, was baptized according to the custom 

of the first chm^h and the rule of the church of England, by immersion." 
Adam Clark, LL. D., F. S. A., (1760-1882), the celebrated 

and standard commentator of the M. E. Church : 

" It is probable that the apostle here alludes to the mode of administer- 
ing baptism, by immersion, the whole body being put under the water " — 
In ZfOco 

'' When he (the person baptized) came up out of the water, he seemed 
to have a resurrection to life He was therefore supposed to throw off his 
old Gentile state, as he threw off his clothes, and to assume a new charac- 
ter, as the baptized generally put on new or fresh garments " — Comment 
on Rom. vi., 4. 

" That the baptism of John was by plunging the body (after the same 
manner as the washing unclean persons — was) seems to appear from those 
things which are related of him ; namely, that he baptized in Jordan, 
that he baptized in Enon, because there was much water there,^' etc. — 
Com. at the end of Mark. 



Mode of Baptism. 517 

• " * Buried,' etc , alluding to the immersion practiced in the case of adulte, 
when the person appeared to be buried under the water, as Christ was 
buried in the heart of the earth; his rising agaia the third day, and their 
emerging from the water, was an emblem of the resurrection of the body, 
and a total change of life." — Com. on Col. ii 12. 

" But as they receive baptism as an emblem of death, in voluntarily go- 
ing under the water, so they receive it as an emblem of the resurrection 
unto eternal life, in coming up out of the water ; thus they are baptized for 
the dead, in perfect faith of the resurrection. — Com. on I Cor. xv. 

The Admissions of Twenty-two of the Most Eminent Presbyterian Scholars 

and Commentators. 

Since our Fresbyterian friends seem so ready to endorse 
the assertions of my opponent, that baptidzo does not prop- 
erly mean ''to immerse," and that Rom. vi. 3 does not refer 
to water baptism, and that immersion was not the act John, 
the apostles, and ail the apostolic and primitive chnrclies 
observed, I wish to place before them, especially the 
testimony of twenty-two, and I could easil}^ double the 
number, of their most eminent scholars and theologians, 
from the days of Calvin down to this day. I wish to ask 
them if they will throw all these overboard into the deep 
and accept the assertions of one man, Eld. Ditzler, as of 
more weight ? Between Eld. Ditzler and all these they must 
choose. 

CaLiVin. — "The word baptize signifies to immerse; and it is certain 
that immersion was the practice of the ancient church," — Inst., S. 4, ch. 
XV., sec. 19. 

James Macknight (1721-1800), an eminent Scotch divine 
and critic, thirty years a minister in Edinburgh, and twenty 
years moderator of the General Assembly of Scotland, 
author of the Harmony of the Four Gospels, The Truth of 
the Gospel History and Translation of all the Epistles, with 
Commentaries and Notes, says ; 

" Jesus submitted to be baptized — that is, buried under the water by 
John, and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death 
and resurrection .... In like manner the baptism of believers is em- 
blematical of their own death, burial and resurrection." ... " Planted 
together in the likeness of his death. The burying of Christ and of bt^- 
iievers, first in the water of baptism, and afterwards in the earth, is fitly 
enough compared to the planting of seed in the earth, because the effect 
in both cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater perfection." — Apost 
Epis.^ j^ote on Rom. vL 4, 5. 



5i8 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

Dr. Geo. Campbell (1719-1796), an eminently learned min- 
ister, theological professor, church historian, translator, and 
President of Marischal College, Scotland, says : 

" The word baptism, both m sacred authors and in classical, signifies to 
dip, to plunge, to immerse. Had ba,ptidzo been employed in the sense of 
raino, to sprinkle (which, as far as I know, it never is, in any use, sacred 
or classical), the expression would doubtless have been, T indeed baptize 
water upon you.' " 

Dr. Thomas CHAiiMERS. — The original nieaning of the word baptism 
is immersion," "We doubt not that baptism was administered in 
the apostles' days by an actual submerging of the whole body under water. 

(On Rom. vi. 3, 4). We advert to this for the purpose of throwing hght on 
the analogy that is instituted in these verses. Jesus Christ, by death, un- 
derwent this sort of baptism by an immersion under the surface of the 
ground, whence he soon emerged again by his resurrection. We^ by be- 
ing baptized into his death, are conceived to have made a similar transla- 
tion — in the act of descending under the water of baptism, to have resigned 
an old hfe, and in the act of ascending, to emerge into a second or new 
life. 

Isaac Casaubon (1559-1614), a Calvinistic theologian and 

critic, Greek professor at Geneva fourteen years, also held 

the chair of Greek and Belles Lettres in the Univei^ity of 

Montpelier, and most critical Greek scholar of his age, says : 

" This was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into the wa- 
ter, which the very word hapUdzem^ to baptize, sufficiently declares ; which^ 
as it does not signify duneiu, to sink to the bottoro and perish^ so doubt- 
less it is not epipoladzein^ to swim on the surface. For these three words^ 
epipoladzein^ baptidzein anddimein are of different significations. W'hence we 
luiderstand it was not without reason, that some long ago insisted on the 
immersion of the whole body in the ceremony of baptism ; for they urge 
tJie word baptidzein^ to baptize. — Aniiot. in Matt. iii. 6. 

P. Yan Mastricht, a scholar of reputation, and author of 
works on theology, who died in 1706, says : 

" In baptism we emerge out of a sepulchre of water and pass, as it were^ 
into a new Mfe." — Theoret. Prae. TheoL, b. vii., eh. iv, sec. 10. 

^- Immersion was used by the apostles and primitive churches. — (Rom, 
vi. 3 4, 5,)"— Ibid., sec 9. 

James Basnage, a man of great learning, a church histo- 
rian who died in 1723, says : 

" This (the response of Pope Stephen in the year 754) is accounted the 
first law against immersion. The Pontiff, however, did not disi^ense with 
immersion, except in case of extreme necessity. This law, therefore, did not 
c-aug he niod.e of dipping in public baptism, as it was not till five hun- 



Mode of Baptism. 519 

dred and fifty-seven years after, that the legislature, in a council at Raven- 
na, in the year 131], declared immersion and pouring indifferent." — 
Monumenta, vol. 1., Prsefat, ch. v., sec. 4. 

G. Diodati (1576-1649), a Swiss theologian and preacher 

of note, professor of Hebrew and theology at Geneva, one 

of the best Biblical scholars of his day, both an author and 

translator, says: 

" In baptism, being dipped in water according to the ancient ceremony, 
itis a sacred sign unto us that sin ought to be drowned in us by God's 
Spirit." . 

Richard Baxter (1615-1691, a distinguished preacher, 
author of Saints' Rest and about one hundred and forty- 
four other distinct treatises, says on Matt, iii- 6 : 

"We grant that baptism then (in primitive times) was by washing the 
whole body." " In our baptism we are dipped under the water, as signi- 
fying our covenant profession, that as He was buried for sin, so we are 
dead and buried to sin." 

Dr. John W. Nevin, born 1803, an American theologian, 

and professor of Hebrew and Biblical literature ten years in 

the Theological Seminary at Alleghany City, also President 

of the College and Theological Seminary at Mercersburg, 

Penn., editor of the Mercersburg Review, and author of a 

number of books, says in the Mercersburg Review : 

"It needs but ordinary scholarship, and the freedom of a mind unpledged 
to mere party interests, to see and acknowledge here [that the Baptists 
have] a certain advantage on the subject of baptism. The original sense 
of the word baptidzo is on the whole in their power. It corresponds with 
the idea of immerse much more than with the idea of sprinkling." 

S. Curcelloeus, the learned and celebrated theologian, and 

professor at Geneva and Amsterdam, who died in 1659, says : 

" Baptism was by plunging the whole body into water. , . Nor did the 
disciples that were sent out by Christ administer baptism afterward in any 
other way." — B. v., ch. ii. 

D. Chamierus, a great writer on systematic divinity, pro- 
fessor at Montauban, who died in 1621, says : 

" Immersion of the whole body was used from the beginning, which 
expresses the force of the word baptize, whence John baptized in a river. 
It was afterward changed into sprinkling, though it is uncertain when or 
by whom it commenced." — Panstrat, Cathol , torn, iv., L. v., ch.ii., sec. 6. 

Venema. — " The word haptidz in^ to baptize, is nowhere used in the 
Scriptures for sprinkling."— Inst. Hist. EccL Vet. and Nov. Test,, torn, 
iii., sec. i. 1 138. 



520 The Grzat CaTvROlltox Debate. 

H. AiiXN'G. — "The word bapiisiii prciperiy signifies imm ersion ; im- 
properlv, by a metonjTiiy of tlie end, washing.'' — Loci. Coniniun., pars i, 
loc. xiL 

This connrms our statement that secondarv and :d^urative 

meanings are not proper meanings. 

TuERETES". — "The word baptism is of Greek origin, and is derived 
from the verb : : . which signifies to dip, and to dye : 3.::;:::-i:^:ri, to bap- 
tize, to dip intOj toinnnerse." — Ins. loc. xix.. qutes. xi.. see. 4. 

Dk, Reies. — " GrT. BAJTO et bapttdzo raergo et mi-'.'\. Voss. Etym. 
To dip or merge frequently, to sink, to pitmge, to im merge." " The word 
baptism is derivcni from the Greek 3.7pna^-., and means hterally dipping or 
immersion. ""^Ency.' Art. Bap. 

Wrxsrus. — "It cannot be denied, that the native signification of the 
wor:I> ' ; "-■ ■ and oj-pr-dz^irt is to plim.ge. to dip." — CEcon. Ece^i 1. iv., c. 
xvi. s^c. lo. 

•■It is certain that both John the Baptist, and the idis^c-iples of Christ, 
OT'dinarily practiced immersion. — Econ. of the Gov., b. iv., c. xvi., ; 13. 

EJd. Ditzler can den v. thouofh he can offer no proof of it. 

J. G. Altman [1697-1753;. a Sudss historian and divine, 

also professor of moral philosophy and Greek at Berne, says : 

" In the primitive church persons to be baptized were not sprinkle*!, but 
entirely immersed in water, which was performed ac-cordtng to the exam- 
ple of John the Baptist." — On 1 Cor. xv. 29, sec. 8. 

Dr. L. Coleman, S. T. D.. born in 1796, a noted scholar and 

standard church historian, says : 

" The term, baptism is derived from the Greek hap&iio, with its deriva- 
tives baptli-mos and oapiirma, baptism. The primary signification of the 
original is. to dip. to plunge, immerse. Tne obvious import of the noun 
is immersion." — Christian Antiquities, p. 2'>5. 

J. F. Stapfee, "By baptism we understand that rite of the ZS'ew 
Testament church commanded by Christ, in which behevers, by being 
immersed in water, testi.^ their communion with the church.^' — Instit, 
The3l. Polem. torn, i, cap. ili, se<?. 16.3o. 

Jacques Saurin i^l677-1730\. a noted French preacher, and 

author of twelve volumes of sermons and various other trea- 
tises, savs : 

"Paul says. 'We are btiried with h im by baptism into death;' fiiat is 
the ceremony of wholly immersing us in water when we were baptized." 
—Sermons^ vol. iii. p. 171. 

Theodore Beza 1529-1605' an eminent reformer, Greek 

and theological professiT. and on the death of Calvin, took his 

place and became the head of the Preshvterian church, savs: 



Mode of Baptism. 521 

" But haptidzo signifies to dip, since it came from hapto, and since things 
to be dyed are immersed." — On Matt, iii, 13. 

lie admits that some have disputed respecting immersing 

the whole body in the ceremony of baptism, but he maintains 

that " there is no other signification of the verb amad, which 

the Syrians use for baptize." " It answers," says he, " to the 

Hebrew tabal rather than raohatz." {Ibid). Elsewhere he 

says : " Christ commanded us to be baptized, by which word 

it is certain immersion is signified. JSTeither does the word 

hrt'ptidzo signify to wash, except by consequence, for it 

properly signifies to plunge into for the sake of tinging or 

dyeing."— Lee. 2d to T. T. 

Dr. M'Crie. — '' We do not hold that the word baptize signifies to pour 
or sprinkle. This was never om* opinion." — On Bap., p. 32. 

Summary. 

Mr. President : — Having brought in all the direct proof in 
support of the usus loquendi of the verb baptidzo, that my time 
will admit, I will now sum up my argument as briefly as pos- 
sible. 

The proposition I set out to prove is, 

Immersion is the act which Christ commanded for Chris- 
tian BAPTISM. 

My opponent denies it. 

Now this was the one argument which I laid down by which 
to prove it: 

1. The verb baptidzo is the only verb which Christ used 
in the Commission to denote the act which he commanded 
FOR Christian baptism. 

2. The primary and literal meaning of baptidzo — which 

IS THE only real AND TRUE MEANING — IS " TO IMMERSE." 

3. Ergo, 

To IMMERSE IS THE ONLY ACT WHICH ChRIST COMMANDED FOR 

Christian baptism, since it must be granted that in enact- 
ing A LAW, ALL terms MUST BE USED IN THEIR LITERAL, REAL, AND 
MOST OBVIOUS MEANINGS. 

The minor premise being admitted by both parties, the 
single issue- to be settled is the major, i. e., 



52 2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Is to immerse, the primary, the literal and real signification 
of the Greek verb baptidzo f 

As it is conceded by all standard authorities that the use of 
any term by those with whom the language is vernacular, and 
by those who were conversant with the language, is the su- 
preme and ultimate authority in determining its meaning, I 
first appealed to the IsTew Testament for its invariable use by 
the inspired evangelists and apostles, who could not err. 

1. I first showed that John the Baptist, the first gospel minister 
of the New Testament dispensation, used baptidzo and the nouns de- 
rived from it in no other case than 'Ho iinmerse,^' and immersion. 

2. I showed that the symbolism of the act, as taught by 
Christ, was a prefiguration of His own death, burial and resur- 
rection, a fulfillment of the "all-righteousness" He came to ful- 
fill, or accomplish, to secure the remission of the sins of His 
people; also, 

3. That Christ metaphorically spoke of His own overwhelm- 
ing sufi'erings as a baptism, alluding thus to His own at the 
hands of John. 

4. That Paul, Rom. vi, 3, and Col. li, 12, alluding to the act 
which Christ received in the river Jordan, calls it a ^'burying,'' 
a "planting," in the likeness of death. 

I therefore concluded that Christ and his apostles, and all 
whom John baptized, were immersed in water. In support of 
this conclusion I brought forward the testimony of all the most 
eminent Pedobaptist scholars, commentators and critics. 

Immersion in water then was the only act which Christ 
commanded His first minister to perform. 

Immersion in water was the act which He Himself received, 
as our law-giver and exemplar. 

Immersion, then, was the only act which the apostles and 
all the disciples of Christ, the members of the first Christian 
church on earth received prior to the ascension of Christ. 

For it is on record that Christ's disciples made and baptized 
more disciples than John, and no one will deny that they ad- 
siiinistered the act which they and their Master had received. 

IV. My fourth argument was from the commission itself— 



Mode of Baptism. 523 

Christ used the same verb, baptidzo, and there is no shadow 
of intimation that there was to be any change in the act itself, 
which, according to every principle of law and reason, there 
should have been had he designed to change the physical act 
of the rite, or his apostles would inevitably have fallen into 
error. But he only extended a former commission given 
them, no longer limiting their ministry to Palestine, but ex- 
tending it to the ends of the earth. 

I reasonably concluded that Christ in the commission only 
authorized His apostles to administer the self-same act which 
He appointed from the first, and which He and they had re- 
ceived at the hands of John, which was an immersion in 
water. 

V. Then from the very internal construction of the lan- 
guage of the commission, I showed that the act commanded 
must have been immersion alone. 

The subjects autous, of the act being the direct accusative of the 
verb baptidzo forbids the idea that some element, as water, 
was to be put upon them, since a preposition must be supplied, 
or the language be made figurative, neither of which is ad- 
missible; but that the subjects were to be put bodily into it. 

I showed from the very signification of the verbs to sprinkle 
and to pour, which is to scatter into drops, disperse into fine 
particles, or to difliise in a continuous stream, that literally 
they could not take indivisible or inseparable objects as direct 
accusatives, but must take liquids, as water, etc., or separable 
solids, as sand, ashes, etc. If Christ had intended the element, 
water, to be put upon the subjects of baptism. He would have 
made it the direct accusative of the verb indicating the act, 
and have used the preposition on, or upon, before the subjects. 
Had He intended the subjects to be placed within the element, 
He would have placed them as the direct accusative of the 
verb. This He did do, and therefore we are compelled to con- 
clude that this He intended. 

Then again. Since it is impossible to sprinkle, scatter into 
drops or particles, or to pour, difl'use in a continuous stream, 
human beings without destroying life, therefore it is evident 
the verb baptidzo Christ used can have no such signification. 



524 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

My fifth argument I will state in these words : You can- 
not SPRINKLE OR POUR LIVING BEINGS, BUT ONLY WATER, ETC., 
UPON THEM, therefore ChRIST DID NOT COMMAND THEM TO BB 
SPRINKLED OR POURED. 

YI. My sixth argument was from the invariable adaptation 
of the definitions to immerse and immersion in every passage 
in the Kew Testament where baptidzo or its noun baptisma 
is used. 

By substituting no other word, can the sense of every pas- 
sage be preserved, and this I regard as evidence demonstra- 
tive that baptidzo literally signifies only to immerse. 

Vn. My seventh argument was, 

The apostles to whom the commission was given evidently 
understood Christ to mean immersion only as the sense of 
baptidzo. 

In all their ministry they evidently observed no other act. 
In all their allusions to the action of baptism, immersion is 
clearly intended, and no other act will fulfill the symbolism of 
baptism as set forth in their writings, so that we may say 
of them all as Coneybeare and Howson say of Rom. vi, 3, 
" It cannot be understood unless it be borne in mind that the 
primitive baptism was by immersion. 

This fact alone I regard as demonstrative and conclusive 
that the real signification of baptidzo is to immerse. 

VIII. My eighth source of proof was. 

The invariable use of the term by Greek authors themselves. 

It is an admitted fact, by all scholars, that no Greek author 
has yet been found that uses baptidzo in a physical sense to sig- 
nify, either *' to sprinkle," or " to pour," but always " to im- 
merse," " to dip," etc., and that wherever they use it figura- 
tively the sense of the figure involves the idea of an immersion. 
It is known to all that I repeatedly called upon my opponent 
to bring forward, or give an authoritative quotation from one 
Greek author who used baptidzo in a physical sense to mean 
" sprinkle," and he has been unable to do so. 

He claims that baptidzo never meant to immerse before the 
time of Polybius — but L ?iave given you its use in that sense 



Mode of Baptism. 525 

by Aristotle, who lived 180 years before Polybius, and I have 
called upon him for one authority to support his assertion that 
haptidzo ever meant to sprinkle, and he has not furnished it. 

IX. My ninth source of proof has been the lexicons. I 
have brought forward the united testimony of forty lexicons, 
among these all that are regarded as standard aidhoritie^ in 
Europe and America, and one and all, each and several, give 
"to dip," or "to immerse," as the primary — i e. the literal and 
real signification of hajptidzo. To divert your attention from 
this stern, crushing and conclusive fact, my opponent has 
spent a full day in talking to you about a new discovery in 
philology, according to which the true primary is the historical, 
etc., which all scholars will laugh at as fanciful and absurd. 
To save needless controversy, at the very outstart I presented 
Rules of Interpretation, selected from the best authorities, and 
these Rules were mutually accepted by us. By virtue of the 
the first three of those Rules, what we were to understand in 
this debate as the primary and literal sense of any term, is 
clearlv determined. 

Rules of Interpretation. 

I. Every word must have somt specific idea^ or notion^ which we call meaning. 
Were not this so, words would be meaningless and useless. 

II. The literal^ which is also called the grammatical sense of a word, is 
the sense so connected with it that it is first in order, and is spontaneously 
presented to the mind as soon as the sound is heard. This meaning is 
always, placed first in the lexicons, and is known as the primary meaning. 

III. " The primary or literal meaning is the only true one.^' — Ernesti, 
p. 14. 

Ernesti quotes Morus in support of this : " There can be no certainty 
at all in respect to the interpretation of any passage, unless a kind of neces- 
sity compels us to affix a particular sense to a word ; which sense, as I 
have before said, must be one ; and unless there are special reasons for a 
tropical (or secondary) meaning, it must be the literal sense." 

Stuart says: " If any one should deny that the above principles lead 
to certainty when strictly observed, would deny the possibility of finding 
tlie meaning of language with certainty." 

Kow by these rules I have been strictly governed, and these, 

every University and Theological Seminary in Europe and 

Anicnca will endorse. 



526 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I have 5ouo:ht tlirou2:liout this discussion the true, and 

CO / 

the real, the literal signilica*ion of haptldzo. and have, there- 
fore, in readincT from the lexicons, as a general rule, read onlr 
the strictly primo.ry meanings, the lirst one. two or three given. 
In all cases o^"LY oxe. a^d that the first, woeld have been 
SUE^ICIE^■I ! In everv case I have foit^ifullv and fullv o;iven 
the primary sense of the lexicon. I have shown that no jigu- 
rativc. which is alwavs the secondary, sense of a term, is its real 
and physical sense, and is, therefore, not a real or literal sig- 
nification, and vrith such we have nothing to do in this debate. 
I have explained how that, in strictest truth, Baptists may say 
with Carson and Anthon. that 



'•'Xo SIAXDAED LEXICON IN THE WORLD &IYES "TO SPRINKLE. 



OR • TO POUR,' AS A LITERAL AND REAL SIGNIFICATION OF BAP- 
TIDZO.'-' 

I have in almost every speech not only most affectionately 
invited, but urgently called upon, demanded or challenged my 

opponent to produce one Greek lexicon of acknowledged ati- 
thority, or an authoritative quotation from one. that gives "to 
sprinkle,"'' or "'to pour,'"'" as a primary meaning of haptldzo. 
He has not done it ! His failure to do so should be consid- 
ered as conclusive evidence to all that to immerse, etc., ^s the 
only signilieation of hapiidzo, 

Everv semblance of an arorument made bv him has been 
founded upon the figurative significations of bo.pUdzo. or. that 
by some author or in some version, a word is used for baptidzo 
that elsewhere is used in the sense of "to wet,'"'" or "to 
sprinkle I ! '"' 

And this reminds me of the distinction Eld. Ditzler has en- 
deavored to fix in vour minds. 

1. That while he admits that to immerse is the clasic use of 
baptidzo. it is not its meaning in the Xew Testament G-reek, 
but to wash, to cleanse in anv wav. This claim I have shown 
to be utterly groundless, in my speech on that subject to which 
all are referred — Dr. De Meyer emphatically says, and with 
Mm agree all the best scholars, such as Chalmers. Dr. Lange, 
Coneybeare and Howson, " baptidzo^ which word in classic 



Mode of Baptism. 527 

Greek, and in the new testament everywhere means to 
immerse." — Com. on Mark vii, 4. 

It is not true, that any standard lexicon distinguishes be- 
tween classic Greek and New Testament Greek in giving 
definitions of baptidzo — i. e., that it means one thing in classic 
Greek, and something difiTcrent in the ITew Testament. 

2. Then he ha§ tri^d to make a show of an argument from 
the comparatively few times Baptists use " to dip," for bap- 
tidzo, rendering it as they do almost invariably to immerse. 
There is not enough to make a shade in this fact. All lexi- 
cons give to dip, and to immerse, as synonymous terms, as the 
Germans give mergo, immergo and tingo, intingo as synonyms of 
baptidzo, and we are at liberty to use the most euphonious one, 
and Baptist authors r^enerally have selected immerse — for its 
smoothness and euphony. Let it therefore be borne in mind, 
that wherever a lexicon gives to immerse, it means also to dip, 
and that of the forty I have read here, the majority give to dip 
as the first of the synonyms for the prim.ary signification, and never 
to wet or moisten, much less to sprinkle. 

X. My tenth argument, and one upon which I am willing 
to rest this whole controversy, is embraced in the last, but to 
make salient, I place by itself : 

In 1846 Liddell & Scott, of England, upon the basis of Pas- 
sow, brought out their great English lexicon, which has been 
endorsed by the scholars of both continents as the best Greek 
and English lexicon extant. In their first edition, as a sev- 
enth meaning of baptidzo, figurative of course, they give " to 
pour upon." Prof. Drisler, of Columbia College, undertakes 
an American edition. Before he gets the last pages of his 
work through the press, Liddell & Scott issue in England a 
second edition, and because satisfied that " to pour upon " is 
not sustained by classical or I^ew Testament usage, they omit 
it as well as " to drench." Prof. Drisler, in his second Amer- 
ican edition, does likewise. In the last edition of this last 
and greatest of all the Greek lexicons published in the English 
language, only " to dip in or under water," of ships, " to sink 
them," is given as the primary meaning of baptidzo. 

But he has sought to belittle the great work of Liddell and 



528 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Scott, as '-a small affair," "made for school boys," etc. I will 
once more put it upon record, that by general consent of schol- 
ars this lexicon is accounted the very best English work ever 
published, as Host and Palm's is accounted the very best Ger- 
man lexicon. These lexicographers had aU the results of the 
labors and discoveries in philology of all the scholars and lex- 
icographers who preceded them, and into their works they 
gather all that can be regarded as authoritative and trust- 
worthy. Into these lexicons we may safely look for the cor- 
rect significations of Greek words — and what does each give 
as the literal and primary meaning of baptidzo, but to dip in or 
under water I This and nothing more. Host and Palm give 
"often and frequently," following Passow as Liddell & Scott did 
in their first edition, but which they omit in their last as unwar- 
ranted, to which all scholars now consent. Then the last, 
greatest and best of all English lexicons, gives to dip, "in or 
under" as the only real literal meaning of baptidzo. 

Kow, you can clearly see that here is a final answer to his 
claim that, as figurative meanings often become their primary 
— and this very statement destroys his theory of historical 
primary — so the figurative meanings of baptidzo — i. e. to wet, 
moisten in any way, and hence to sprinkle — have now become 
the primary and present meaning of baptidzo. If this was the 
case, why do not Liddell and Scott, and Rost and Palm give 
these meanings as the primary in their late lexicons, but they 
equally deny them to be real meanings of baptidzo, as do all 
the lexicographers who have gone before them. 

But he claims that the modern Greek lexicons sustain him ! 
I have shown that not one sustains him. Let me sum them up 
for a separate argument. 

Sophocles, (standard) Baptidzo, to dip, to immerse: sink, to be drowned as 
the effect of sinking. 

Kouma. To sink, to put frequently into water. 

Gazes. Baptidzo, mid so (bapto) suchna houto ti mesa eis to hai enteuthen ana ton. 
To dip a thing frequently into something and thence up ana ton in respect 
to it — that is, up to the surface — if ana was here used to govern the ae- 
cusative — signify upon , the pronoun ton would have been en. 

With their figurative and secondary meanings I have noth- 
ing to do — what has to pump or to draw water to do with set- 



Mode of Baptism. 529 

tling this question. lie may say that the water is drawu "that 
it may \)Q poured forth;" and I say that what may be done with the 
water atter it is drawn has nothing to do with the definition 
of the verb — nor with the act of drawing. Water has been 
drawn, that it might be drank — and is Ho drink" therefore a 
proper definition ofbaptidzo, or to pump or draw water! 

My opponent has afiS.rmecl that baptidzo never was used in 
the sense of immerse before the days of Polybius, etc. 

But these forty lexicons give tne meaning of baptidzo, in ev- 
ery age since the Greek has been a settled language and not 
one of them, neither the oldest nor the latest, even so 
much as intimates that baptidzo ever had any other meaning 
primarily— than to dip — and I have shown you that Aristotle 
one hundred and eighty years before Polybius used it in 
the sense of to immerse. 

I^ow thirty full years have passed since Liddell and Scott, 
with the eyes of the scholars of Germany, England, and 
America upon them, with their knowledge and approval, made 
this change in their lexicon, and for no other reason except 
that they could not find a standard Greek author who used 
baptidzo in the sense of to pour upon, or to drench, even figura- 
tloely, and no scholar of earth could then help them to the 
authority. Thirty years of investigation and research have 
passed, and all the Pedobaptist scholars of Germany, England 
and America have not been able to furnish them any authority 
to justify "to pour upon," or to sprinkle, as even a proper figura- 
tive signification of baptidzo! Should not this fact settle this 
question in the mind of every candid man and Christian in 
the world? How supremely ridiculous for a man who never 
read as many consecutive lines in one book of classic Greek 
as these scholars have read Greek authors, to stand up in the 
hearing of the world and assert that baptidzo, primarily, never 
means to dip, to immerse, but means to sprinkle, " to pour! " 
Such a man is not talking to be regarded by scholars, he 
knows that he must forfeit all standing among them, but to 
the ignorant, with whom bold assertion accomplishes far more 
than argument. 

XI. My eleventh source of proof was the testimony of the 



530 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Greek Fathers and Bishops, to whom Greek was vernacular, 
and every one bore witness that baptidzo, naturally signified 
only to immerse, and that immersion was the sole and univer- 
sal practice of the apostolic churches, and to this I added the 
invariable practice of the Greek church from the fourth cen- 
tury until now. 

XII. My twelfth argument was from the testimony of all 
the Latin Fathers, from Tertullian downward, and they one 
and all understood baptidzo to signify mergo, immergo, tingo, and 
intingo, to sink in, to immerse, to dip, to dip in, and that im- 
mersion was the univesal practice of the primitive churches ; 
and to this I added the uniform practice of the Latin or 
Romam Catholic church for 1300 years, except in cases of 
necessity, when sprinkling was allowed, which was finally 
established by law by Pope Stephens at Aries A. D. 754. 

XIII. My thirteenth source of proof was the Versions of 
the Old and l^ew Testaments. 

(1). The first Greek version of the Old Testament was made 
in the third century before Christ by seventy learned Jews. 
They rendered ttie verb taval, the word which as invariably in 
Hebrew means to immerse as to dip does in English — by bap- 
tidzo, save in one instance, where they translate it figuratively 
"to dye." 

(2.) In the Syriac-Peschito, which, until the appearance of 
the Curetonian text, was regarded the oldest version of the 
N"ew Testament, translates baptidzo and its derivatives invari- 
ably by the verb amad and its derivatives ; and amad in Syriac, 
as all standard lexicographers testify, primarily signifies to 
immerse. I have put it in proof that the Syrian Christians 
from the first century have immersed. I have put it in proof 
that at Edessa, where was their most ancient, their mother 
church, a large house called maaduthito, baptistery, was erected 
for the purpose of immersion. I have said nothing in this dis- 
cussion contradictor}' of what I wrote in my Edition of Stuart on 
Baptism, which any one by comparing me can see, but I have, 
for the honor of the Holy Spirit, opposed the claims of the 
Syriac version as equal with the inspired text, which my oppo- 
nent has put up for it, which I regard as little less than profane ! 



AIoDE OF Baptism. 531 

God's word, with me isaboveiid that has beeD written. It is indeed 
an ancient version, but made by uninspired and therefore falK- 
ble men, and scarce to be compared with the inspired text; 
but all its testimony is in support of immersion as the only 
act of Christian baptism, as is the practice of the Syrian 
churches from the beginning until now. 

And this I have shown with respect to every version of the 
New Testament made, whether in the Orient or the Occident, 
ancient or modern, wherever the word has been translated, a 
native word being invariably used that signifies to immerse. 

XIV. My fourteenth argument in proof is : 

The testimony of all the historians of the Eastern or Greek 
Church. 
They all say that immersion was the primitive practice. 

XV. My fifteenth is the united voice of all the historians of the 
Latin or Roman Catholic Church. 

XVI. My sixteenth is the unbroken testimony of the historians of 
the Church of England without an exception. 

XVII. My seventeenth is the united testimony of all the histo- 
rians of the Lutheran Church. 

XVIII. My eighteenth is the accordant testimony of all the histo- 
rians of the Presbyterian Church. 

XIX. My nineteenth is the testimony of all the historians of the 
Methodist Churchy as well as of all historians endorsed by that com- 
munion. 

XX. 7%€ testimony of all the historians of the Congregational 
Church. 

There is the utmost accord among all these that immersion 
was the only act of apostolic and primitive baptism. 

Can it be that these, one and all, are unreliable ? Can it be 
that the unsupported assertions of one man will outweigh 
critical statements of full one hundred of the most eminent 
pedobaptist scholars and all the historians of seven different 
denominations ? 

XXL My twenty-first argument in proof is the conjoint tes- 
timony of the Fathers of the Reformation, and of Methodism 
itself, Calvin, Zuingle, Luther, and Wesley. 

These four unitedly bear the same testimony that the radical 



532 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and natural signification of bapiidzo is to immerse, and that 
immersion was the practice of the first churches. Will Meth- 
odists suffer the authority of their iather and founder to be 
ranked as inferior to the bare word of a modern traveling 
preacher? Will Presbyterians admit that the authority of 
my opponent is superior to that of their great Calvin, v^ho 
was indeed the first scholar of his age ? 

XXII. My twenty-second argument in proof is the ad- 
mission OF twenty-three of the most eminent Pedobaptist 
scholars, commentators and critics. 

These extend over a period of three hundred consecutive 
years, embracing the ripest scolarship of every century, includ- 
ing the first. Must the united testimony of all these weigh 
light as air, when counterpoised by the bare words of one man ? 

XX. Finally, I have presented the conjoint testimony 
of ten standard Cyclopedias. 

These are neither denominational norpartizan, but national 
in their character, establishing the fact that immersion was 
the only apostolic and primitive act. 

In view of all these irrefragible proofs, I conclude in the 
language of Moses Stuart, one of the very first Pedobaplist 
scholars of his age ; 

" Bapto and baptidzo mean to dip, plunge, or immerse into any liquid. 
All lexicographers and critics of any note are agreed on thiis." 'It is/ 
says Augusti (Denku. vii., p., 216), ' a thing made out,' viz., the ancient 
practice of immersion. So indeed all the writers who have thoroughly 
investigated the subject conclude. I know of no usage of ancient times 
which seems to be more clearly made out. I cannot see how it is pos- 
sible FOR ANY candid MAN WHO EXAMINES THE SUBJECT TO DENY 
THIS."— pp. 51, 149, 150. 

I therefore, Mr. President, feel justified in saying that I 
have established my major premise above all question or con- 
troversy — i. e., that the primary, literal and real signification of 
baptidzo is " to immerse," and only " to immerse. 

Brgo, 

I feel that I am justified in saying that my conclusion is log- 
ical and invincible — 

Immersion was the act which Christ commanded for 
Christian baptism. Q. E. D. 

Mr. President, the additional time allowed to me in closing 
my argument, you will grant to my opponent, if he desires it. 



Mode of Baptism. 533 



DR. DITZLER'S NINTEENTH REPLY. 

Oentlemen Moderators :— As to those authorities, we have 
offset them over and again. I. As to Encyclopedias, you will 
notice : 

1. How completely each new one substantially copies the 
former. Hence it is quite as one, 

2. The main ones simply copy Wall, an avowed immersionist, 
and. one who never examined into this question with anything 
like critical research, but spent his time on the historic argu- 
ments on infant baptism. Yet he proved affusion to be 
Scriptural, 

3. Men are hired to write the separate articles for Encyclo- 
pedias, and immersionists wrote these articles, following Wall, 
mainly, whose preference for dipping he openly avowed. 

4. They are mainly treating of it as it existed in days sub- 
sequent to the apostles. By primitive church, they mean the 
earliest centuries, contrasting them with the " apostolic church.'' 
It is well known that such old Episcopal and Catholic writers 
look on what occurred in the second, third, and first part of 
the fourth century, as quite of equal authority as if occurring 
in apostohc times. Hence the boldness of their deductions 
as to what was done in Christ's time. We demand proof in 
all these matters. Hence : 

5. These authorities had not one-tenth of the Ught and facts 
on this subject that we to-day have. The Baptists have pro- 
claimed and published it to the world that the most eminent 
of the scholars of the first half of the century Wall lived in, 
gave us TWENTY THOUSAND (20,000) errors in the version they 
gave us. Hence the opinion of such men is not to be taken 
as infallible by any means. 

n. As to the authorities he quotes, we will first notice a 
few of them^ then off'set with far superior— almost infinitely 



534 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

superior scholars and critics, both of a former age, and of the 
present. 

1. Take Mosheim, for the historians, as he is the boldest. 
What proof does he adduce to support his bold words ? One 
quotation only — Vossius. But Vossius, living in the seven- 
teenth century, is too late to tell us anything we do not know. 
In the next place, Vossius held that affusion was practiced in 
the apostolic day, just as Witsius, Terretinus, Suicer, etc., 
held, and gave " adsper^ere,^^ sprinkle, as a New Testament 
meaning of baptidzo. Hence Mosheim^s partiality for immer- 
sion, though a Pedobaptist, led him to suppress, and do in- 
justice to the testimony of Vossius. A great number of the 
authors Dr. Graves quotes, are so little known, so little read, 
and of such inferior standing, we need not quote but a few, 
and they shall be the greatest of eritics^-most of them of 
this age. 

HiSTOEIANS ANB CRITICS. 

1. As you all say lexicographers are to be tested by the 
original authorities whence thep derived their information, so we 
demand now, especially when all historians are now required, 
in foot notes, to give the authorities they rely on for state- 
ments. This is just Hence, when Mosheim, Keander, etc., 
state a point, we have access to all they had, and a vast deal 
MORE. They never saw Hvppoly'tus when they wrote, e. g. 

Mosheira and Neander etc., rely mainlf on T'ertulUan — we 

have seen his testimony* 

1. Alford. — On Mark vii. 4, 8: "The bapiisrmn, as applied to Minoi 
(couches at meals) were certainly not im/mersions, but sprinkUngs or 
affusions of water." Luke xi. 38 : " Did not imply necessarily immersion 
of the whole body." 

Acts ii.. 41, vol. ii. 25: "Almost without doubt, this first !mptism> must 
have been administered, as that of the first Gentile converts was (see eh. 
X. 47, and note), by affhsion, or sprinMinff, not by' immersion.^^ (Italics 

His.) 

2. Beza is thus quoted by Dr. Judd, Review of M. Stuart, 
Apen. to Dr. Graves's publication, p. 249. " Beza, after re- 
marking that baptidzo properly means to immerse, and never 
to vjashy except as a CQ.NSE.QUEKCE of immerse^ says Kec alia 



Mode of Baptism. 535 

est, etc. — nor does the signification of amad which the Syrians use 
for baptize, differ at all from this, — See Beza An not. in Marc, 
vii. 4." 

M. Stuart shows that there baptidzo means '' to wash, cleanse 
by water." " Bapto — to moisten, wet, bedew." He says the 
cases in Daniel iv. and v., *'make it plain that the word bapto 
was occasionally used to designate the application of liquid or 
moisture to the surface of anything, in any way whatever ; 
whether of washing, or by gentle affusion of the dew. The 
example of Judith shows very clearly that washing of the per- 
son may be designated by baptidzo; for into the fountain, in the 
midst of the camp, it is not probable that she plunged." 
" We have also seen, in Nos. 2, 5, 6, of Examples from the 
Septuagint and Apocrypha, that the word baptidzo sometimes 
means to wash; and bapto to moisten, to wet, or bedew. 
There is, then, no absolute certainty from usage, that the 
word baptidzo, when applied to designate the rite of baptism, 
means of course to immerse or plunge." "Both the classic 
use aiid that of the Septuagint show that washing and copious 
affusion are sometimes signified by the word."- — Bib. Ref., vol. 
i. 1833, p. 313. 

He then urges that Acts ii. 41, ix. x. 43-37 ; Acts xvi. 14, 
16, 32, 33, etc., were all by affusion — on Pentecost 3000, the 
5000, the Jailor, Paul, Lydia, etc. 

Moses Stuart further says : " These are all the examples of 
bapto or baptidzo which can be found in the Septuagint or 
Apocrypha." From these the reader will easily see, that 
some of the classical meanings of these are not to be found 
in the books aforesaid; whilst other meanings, viz., to wash^ to 
bedew, or moisten, are more clearly and fully exhibited." Page 
69. His result is : " We do obey the command to baptize, 
when we do it by affusion or sprinkling." Page 195. 

Baumgarten. — ^* The baptism of Saul followed immediately the receiv- 
ing of his sight, is baptized by means of the water poured upon him.^^ — 
Com. on Acts ix. 1, 86, vol. i., p. 238-9. 

"With a part of the same water [used in washing their stripes], the 
keeper of the prison and all his were baptized * * without the dipping of 
the whole body, in the open running water." — Vol. ii. 134. 

OiLSHAUSEN, On John iiL 25-27 : "The dispute related to baptism— Aa^Aa- 



536 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

rismos [puriiication] equivalent to hapUsma.^'' This was always bysprink- 
liug. See Joliu ii. 6 ; Heb. ix. 13 ; Mark vii. 4. " Ablutions of all sorts * * 
baptLsrnos is lieie, as in Hebrews ix. 10, ablution, washing generally." He 
considers that in Acts ii. 41, the 3000 were baptized by "sprinkling." 

Bea'GELu — " immersion in baptism, or at least the sprinkling of water 
upon the person," etc. 

Faibbaikn. — "The 'diverse' evidently points to the several uses of 
water, such as we know to have actually existed under the law, spHnklings^ 
tvanhiUys^ bathings. ^^ — Hermet, Manual, Art, baptidzo. 

Bloomfield, on Mark vii. 4: "Washing of the hands before men- 
tioned, in which, however, is not imphed immersion." Acts viii. 38: 
"Philip seems to have taken up water with his hands and poured it copi- 
ously on tne Eunuch's head." 

Geo. Hull. — "Both sprinkling and immersion are imphed in the word 
baptLiizo.^^ — L,uct. on JJiv. 65y. 

A. Clake. — " Were the x)eople dipped or sprinkled? for it is certain 

hapto and oaptulzo mean both." — On Matt. in. 6. 

J. Weseey. — "The Greek word [for baptize] means indifferently either 
washing or sprinKimg." — Xotes on Mark vii. 7. 

Steir considers that on Pentecost they were baptized by 
sprinkling. Lieben Jesu. 

Archbishop Ke:xdbick, Cathohc, so often misrepresented, says, 
quoting Auguscme's words: " Unless wneat be ground, and sprinkled 
with water, it cannot come to that form which is called bread. 
So you, also, were hrst ground as it were by m^'stic exorcisms. Tnen was 
added baptism : ye were as it were i> nnk.ea^ tnatye might come to the form 
of bread. ""=•■ On this Kendricksays : "St. Augustine remarks ^ * sprinkled 
with water [quoting the abovej. In like manner [again quoting the 
above]. This being addressed generally to tne faithful, most of whom were 
solemnly baptized, leads us to infer that even in solemn baptism, asper- 
sion was often used, water being sprinkled on the candidate whUe he stood 
deeply immersed."! 

On Hebrews ix. 10, Archbp. Kendrick again says : "St. Paul calls the 
various ablutions of the old law, many of which were by aspersion, diven 
baptisms, *• ''' Thus it appears manifest that the term was in his time, used 
indiscriminately for all kinds of ablution." — 188 . 

DoDDBiDGE. — "Hebrews ix. 10, and in different baptisms or w'ashings, 
either of the whole body or a part of it in water, as different occasions 
deonanded." "I see no proof that it (immersion) was essential to the in- 
stitution." — Com. in loc. and Acts viii. 38. 

On Acts viii. 38, he supposes Philip poured the v^ater on 
him. 

*■ Sermon CC xxviii., ad Inf. de Sacram. 141 7« 
tK. on Bap. 156, Ed. 1852. 



Mode of Baptism. 537 

Cabpzoo, Issagoge, p. 1085: "Baptism is a Greek word, and in itself 
means a washing, in whatever way performed, whether by immersion 
in water, or by aspersion. * * It is not restricted to immersion or asper- 
sion ; hence it has been a matter of indifference from the beginning 
whether to administer baptism by immersion or by pouring of water." — 
Page 330. 

Gekhard, of whom the great Tholuck says : "The most learned, and 
with the learned, the most beloved among the heroes of Lutheran ortho- 
doxy," says: "Whether a man is baptized by immersion into water, or 
by sprinkling, or applying the water to him, it is the same." — Loc. 
Theol. ix. 137. 

Reinhakd. — "Earthly or perceptible, pure natural water in which a 
person is immersed, or with which he is partially sprinkled, is the baptism 
instituted by Christ." — Dogmat. 570, 572 also. 

LiGHTFOOT. — "The word, therefore, baptismous (washings), applied to all 
these [people, vessels, beds, Mark vii. 4,] properly, and strictly, is not to 
be taken of dipping or plunging [itaUcshis], but, in respect of some things, 
of washing only, and, in respect of others, of spi^inkling only." — Hor'CB 
Heh. et lal. ii. 419. 

It is useless to pile up authorities that can be multiplied 
almost endlessly. Let it be remembered, we have selected 
the mo^t eminent of their respective ages in the department 
of philology. Olshauseii, Baumgarten, Alford, A. Clarke, 
Stier, Fairbairii, Tholack, Bloomfield, Stuart, had no superiors 
— all belong to this century, and all, save one or two, to our 
age. Not one is quoted from second hand. 

[The above is put in, as Dr. Graves and I agreed, neither 
ol us having read our authors, of the above class, connectedly 
in debate]. 

We now have no time to notice little points, the debate is 
to be settled by the real facts in the case, the science of lan- 
guage, the laws of philology. To this all scholars are agreed. 
I can only give a few of my many points and facts in the short 
space of half an hour. Then we came to the Greek. Here 

I. We appealed to the lexicons. 

1. The Greek Lexicography was developed in the West— 
in England and France by Budseus, Stephanus, Scapula and 
Constantine — all immersionists — under immersion laws and 
practices, which coiitinued in force, even for long years after 
this. Saperstition added to the intensity of popular prejudice 



53^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 

in favor of immersion. All subsequent lexicons till Passow, 
Schneider's larger work, Host and Palm, were only servile 
abridgments of Stephanus and Scapula, Scapula an abridg- 
ment of Stephanus. Hence all prejudice was on the side of 
immersion up to our age. 

2. All this class of lexicons — the better ones — 

(1). Give "merse, immerse" for the classic use and "over- 
whelm." 

(2). They never give ^'immerse" as a l^ew Testament use at 
all — not one of them. 

(3). They never give dip as either a classic or New Testa- 
ment use. Dip came in under the later, loose definitions of 
the middle age of lexicography when the silly conceit took 
the brains of some that it was a frequentative, as Dr. Graves 
told us truly. 

(4). They all give as its only !N"ew Testament use abluo, lavo — 
abluo is cleanse, lavo is wash, besprinkle. 

This is the old, unscientific body of lexicons. They all sup- 
port our practice — are against Dr. Graves. 

3. Next came the mass of lexicons of the old school, now 
known as empirical, j'et good, not scientific, but valuable. 
We produced a part of these, Schsetzennius, Suicer, Stokius, 
Schleusner, etc., etc., — an armed host. Every one of them 
gave either sprinkle, pour, sprinkle and pour, or a word equiv- 
alent to both. Here let us quote Stokius once more in full 
both on the noun where A. Campbell and Dr. Graves rely on 
him, then on the verb, and see if he contradicts himself or 
supports Dr. Graves. I take Dr. Graves's own rendering of it. 

"Baptisma. 1. Generally, and by force of the original it denotes im- 
mersion or dipping. 2. Specially, a. Properly, it denotes the immer- 
sion or dipping of a thing in water, that it may be cleansed or washed. 
Hence, it is transferred to designate the first sacrament of the New Testa- 
ment, which they call of initiation, namely baptism, in which those to be 
baptized were, formerly immersed into water ; though at this time the wa- 
ter is only sprinkled upon them, that they may be cleansed from the 
pollution of sin, receive the remission of it, and be received into the cove- 
nant of grace, as heirs of eternal life." 
Note here — 

1. No text of the Bible is given to support this — '■formerly 
immersed." 



Mode of Baptism. 539 

It was " formerly," in a day when they who did so held it to 
be that " they may be cleansed from the ■pollution of sin,^' and 
" which they call [the rite] of initiation.^' Yes, exactly so. Co- 
nan t quotes scores of such places where they call it all of this, 
but it is hundreds of years after Christ in every ease. It was 
when the jargon of the dark ages w^as developed. 

3. When they by baptism professed to receive them "into 
the covenant of ofrace and heirs of eternal life." Then is when 
thQy immersed formerly as now they sprinkle. So says Stokius. 
But no Scripture can be adduced for this. It was simply 
"formerly." iTowletus have hi^New Testament use and defi- 
nition. 

Stokius, "BAPTiDzo, lavo, baptidzo, passive, luoi, lavoi. I wash, 

I baptize. Passive, I am washed, cleansed." Here he cites 

^ew Testament texts. He then gives the classic use and his 

idea of its philology. 

"Generally, and by the force of the verb, it obtains the sense of dipping 
or plunging. Specially, {a) properly it is to immerse in water. Tropical- 
ly (1) by a meialepsis, it is to wash or cleanse, because anything is accus- 
tomed to be dipped or immersed in water that it may be washed or cleansed, 
although also the washing or cleansing can be, and generally is effected 
fig/ SPRINKLING the water. Mark vii. 4; Luke xi. 38." 

Heyiceit is translated sprinkle. 

Here, then, we have the unanimous support of all these lexi- 
cons, while not one supports Dr. Graves's position. 

4. Next come the native Greek lexicographers, Kouma and 
Gazes, who studied Greek classics also in Germany, and was 
distinguished with great honors for his erudition. He gives 
it "shed forth, sprinkle," "pour upon" (epichuno), "wash either 
the person or hands," while Kouma gives "besprinkle, shed 
forth" — {breeho, katabrecho). Euthymus, a learned Greek, trans- 
lates baptidzo rantidzo sprinkle, in the 4th century. It is trans- 
lated rantidzo sprinkle by two learned Greeks who copied the 
ISTew Testament, about A. D. 331. It is translated sprinkle by 
eight others — all Greeks before the language died. Why this 
great flurry over Stokius doing so in the light of these facts ? 
Why such writhing over Stokius doing so when the most 
learned men in Greek that ever lived or died in the church, 
Origen, a native Greek, vrho wrote 50 folio volumes in Greek, 



540 TiiE Gi;i:Ar Carrollton Debate. 

born only 84 years after John's death, translated hajpto by raino 
"Sprinkle," as well as Irenseus born before John died, and 
Hippolytus, all Greeks of great leaning of the second and third 
centuries ? You say ba'pto and baptidzo are the same in meaning. 
Seven of the ancient, best and learned versions of antiquity- 
do the same. They received the unaimous support of the whole 
church. 

5. We then come to the more critical, scientific lexicons. 
While Schneider gives immerse as a classic meaning, he gives 
brecho, shed or pour fourth, sprinkle, as its general meaning. 
Passow gives "immerse, submerse" as classic meanings, as 
well as "wet, moisten, sprinkle, intoxicate," then says "gener- 
ally, to sprinkle upon to pour upon, to overwhelm, etc." , 

E-osT and Palm give "immerse, submerse, wet, moisten, 
sprinkle, etc., generally to sprinkle upon, to pour upon, 
overwhelm." 

SwARzrus gives "sprinkle, besprinkle, to pour upon." This 
will do as samples. 

6. l^ot a lexicon on the green earth gives an earlier author- 
ity for immerse, dip or plunge than Polybius — a writer who 
comes in followed by Diodorue Siculus after the great change 
in the Greek language that Liddell and Scott, and all critics 
agree had come in. 

7. These hosts of Greeks, Greek lexicons, earlier, later, all — 
UNANIMOUSLY support US and grind to death and dust our op- 
ponent. 

II. l^ext we introduced the great leaders of immersion or 
dipping — Gale, Conant, Ingham, Carson, etc., etc., when wri- 
ting avowedly to support what they practice from classic 
Greek. We take the result of ther labors. 

1. They tell us baptidzo is always dip. "Wherever is bap, 
(the stem or root sylable) there is the dip." Pendleton ren- 
ders it out of twenty-two cases "dip" only once. Gale out of 
twenty-one, dip three times. Fuller out of twenty-two has it 
dip once. Stuart, when giving all for that side possible, out 
of forty-one cases, once dip, three immerse. Dr. Carson oat 
of thirty one cases has it dip three times only. Conant out of 



Mode of Baptism. 541 

sixty-three coosecutives cases has it dij:) — not once ! Ingham 
out of one hundred and sixty-nine cases has it dip — just once ! ! 
A. Cambell out of all his citations — though under bapto in 
later Greek he gives it dip a number of times — yet under bap- 
tidzo dip — NOT ONCE ! ! ! 

2. Kow then, Dr. Graves abandons the universally admitted 
and well known fact that the primary meaning is the meaning 
the word had first affixed to it by the inventors of the word or 
language, and takes up the general meaning, the current one, usus 
loquendi as the primary one. Suppose we agree to this. It ut- 
terly destroys him. . 

3. Leigh, Passow, Schneider, Rost, Palm, Stokius, 
etc., tell us its general, its current use is sprinkle, pour upon. 

N'otice here. Stokius held as all scholars do, and as every 
tyro knows, that a tropical becomes — often becomes — the literal 
and prevailing meaning of a word and it ceases to be a tropical 
word to those who use it. All know this. We quoted Fowler, 
etc., on it. Hence Schleusner urges that 1. Wash, baptize, 
are the New Testament meanings of baptidzo. Next he urges 
how it came to be so used. Then he urges that from dipping 
in water came wash — a false philology as we saw. Then to 
wash in any mode. Hence the washing was accustomed to be 
performed by sprinkling the water. When this became the 
habit and force of baptidzo, we see the Jews thus baptized daily. 
Mark vii, 4 ; Luke xi, 38. "Hence because baptidzo came to 
be thus practiced altogether by Jews, it is transferred to the sac- 
rament of baptism," and here follow a swarm of texts in the 
Gospels, Acts and Epistles. For the rest and for Schleusner, 
see p. 29, and speech 15. Stokius tells us "since anciently the 
water was copiously poured on those baptized," it came meta- 
phorically to be applied to pouring the Spirit on the people. 

Thus you see Schleusner is wholly on kjWV side. It is in vain 
dust is thrown to obscure these facts. Dr. Graves says it, 
Schleusner's opinionis so and so ! Is not every definition a man 
gives, Ais opinion of the matter? Hence the various ways in 
which they define words. What miserable dodges. 

2. These Baptists show dip, immerse are the rarest of all 

MEANINGS. 



542 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. All demonstate that it never meant immerse till Polybius. 
Hence from Dr. Graves's stand-point immersion is not a pri- 
mary meaning, nor is dip a meaning at all. We demonstrated 
that it never meant to dip. From ei;erj/ stand-point it never 
primarily meant immerse. 

4. We next gave the laws of science, of philology. Liddell 
and Scott, the present Introduction to Webster's Dictionary, 
all scholars agree, that philology, the scientific treatment of 
V70rds to ascertain the primary meaning of words is a very 
modern science, all since Webstefs day even. We have said 
for twenty years this subject never was treated from a proper, 
true stand-point. We produced an array of words that could 
be made indefinitely long, and it is the universal law of lan- 
guage that words develop from sprinkle to immerse as well as 
to dip, taking on all the meanings hapto and baptidzo have, but 
in no case is it the reverse. When science demonsteates a 
proposition, the opinions of even ten thousand opponents who 
spoke when there was no science in it, no laws laid down for 
finding any primary, amount to nothing. Men's opinions are 
only valuable as thej^ have chances to know of what they affirm. 
But on it as far as they knew, all the greatest critics are on our 
side. 

1. We gave full twenty -five words, have over fifty, that pri- 
marily mean to sprinkle, or, as a small proportion do, that 
mean to moisten, bedew, wet, where it is by afi:usion, oft of 
tears, juice of vines, sap; dew, rain, etc., that come to mean 
all that bapto and baptidzo are admitted to mean by all parties. 
Hence the unexceptional and universal law of language is, 
from sprinkle to moisten, wet, stain, color, thence dye, as in 
bapto ; where coloring fiuid is not an accident, it is sprinkle, 
(moisten, wet), pour, (of water), wash, drench, soak; from 
soak, drench, comes, make drunk, intoxicate; from pour, of (wa- 
ter, rain,) comes overwhelm, overflow, inundate. From over- 
whelm, oppressed with overwhelming elements, comes sink, 
(imm ergo, submergo), £ind from sink, sinking in water, etc., comes 
drown, perish. From pouring water by the power of its friction 
necessarily comes wash. Pouring water washes perforce. It 
is God's general cleanser of all the earth. Dew washes dust 



Mode of Baptism. 543 

and dirt off vegetables, flowers, etc., even as perspiration wash- 
es paint off the face.- This we saw was the universal law of 
language. 

2. We saw that no word in Hebrew, Chaldee, Arabic, Syri- 
ac, Ethiopic, Greek, Latin, German, Spanish, English, that 
properly or primarily meant dip or immerse, ever meant what 
all admit ba'pto and bajptidzo so often mean. It is absurd to 
presume that these two important words violate all known 
laws of language, all principles of philology, and all admitted 
facts of history with not one word of reason or fact either to 
demand the acceptance of universal absurdity. 

(1). Wash, we saw, is a derived meaning of baptidzo, and of 
hosts of words primarily implying sprinkle. It is never a de- 
rived meaning of immerse in any language of earth. Hence 
as it is derived from baptidzo, yet never from immerse, im- 
merse never was a primary meaning of the word. 

(2). Intoxicate often is a derived meaning of words primari- 
ly meaning to sprinkle, to moisten, where it is with dew, rain, 
tears, but never from immerse or dip as a primary. But intox- 
icate is a derived meaning of baptidzo. Hence immerse never 
was a primary meaning of baptidzo. 

(3). Overflow is a derived meaning of baptidzo. It never is 
of immerse or dip. Hence immerse, dip, never were primary 
meanings of baptidzo. Words primarily meaning sprinkle, 
pour, often mean to overflow. 

(4). Overwhelm is a constantly recurring meaning of baptidzo 
as a derivative. It never is derived from dip or immerse. 
Hence dip, immerse, never were primary meanings of baptidzo. 
But overwhelm, whelm and overflow are constantly derived 
from words meaning to sprinkle, to pour — -a pouring rain 
causes all these. Hence all facts, all philology, demonstrate 
sprinkle as the primary meaning of the word 

(5). We then took up the classics in Greek and showed 

1. N'o lexicon gave immerse as a meaning earlier than Po- 
lybius, Diodorus Siculus, Strabo, Josephus, and Plutarch — all 
late in the iron age of Greek. 

2. l!^o Greek used it for immerse earlier than these. 



544 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. All the earliest occurrences for centuries were cases (1) 
of metaphorical use only. (2) All in the sense of sprinkle 
and pour — not one dip, not one immerse. Pindar, Aristo- 
phanes, Alcibiades, Demosthenes, all use it for asperse, pour 
torrents of abuse upon people. Plato three times to intoxi- 
cate, once to confuse with questions. Aristotle, the first 
known to use it in a literal sense, makes it equivalent to kuta- 
kludzo, overflow, whose primary meaning is aspersion, insper- 
sion. ]!^ow, then, philology, on which immersionists hereto- 
fore have all relied so securely, as clearly demonstrates 
our position as Euclid ever demonstated a mathematical 
problem. All the occurrences of the word in earlier Greek 
do the same. All facts confirm it. From these there is no 
appeal. Hence by the laws Dr. Graves laid down, no Bap- 
tist is baptized save the few who have gone from Pedobaptist 
churches. You are not baptized if we are to adhere to prima- 
ry use or apostolic precedent. 

(6). Dr. Graves then, seeing his cause swept away as with a 
flood, backed down squarely on primary. He gave up the 
ship on that great issue, their last hope in appealing from the 
general definitions given by lexicons. I^ay, after spending his 
first full hour in giving us an outline and his pilological laws, 
the moment he saw we cut him entirely off", he abandoned his 
line, fled from his entrenchments, and took the nearest cut he 
could for Jordan and Enon, and never paused at the drying up 
of Jordan till he was heard in the tombs, buried by baptism into 
death. IN'ever was there such a precipitate flight from such 
costly and labored entrenchments. 

(7). He appealed to the Hebrew tabhal, rendered baptize in 
the Seventy, used by the apostles and by the lexicons. We 
showed 

1. That sprinkle was its primary meaning. 

2. That twenty-four of the greatest Hebrew lexicographers 
of the world declared where "the object merely touched the 
water, (or liquid), in part or in whole," it baptized. 

3. That the twenty -fifth. Rabbi Furst, the greatest Hebrew 
critic of the last ten centuries, showed its primary meaning was 
to besprinkle, in which the facts of the other twenty-four show 



Mode of Baptism. 545 

liim to be correct, and all our laws of philology demonstrate 
it. It is vain, therefore, for Dr. Graves to seek to disparage 
this prince of science in Oriental philology, when all science, 
and all facts, and all scholarship unite in his support by their 
facts; or if Dr. Graves' position be true, all these, Buxtorfi*. 
'Schindler, Castell, Pocock, Kimchi, Stokius, Leigh, etc., are 
all wrong, wholly wrong. If it implies immersion, then it is 
false to say it only implies a mere touch to the liquid, or to 
be touched by the water, (ah aqua). It could not be true that 
one could baptize with "the little particles of hail" gathered 
by one on a cold day. Nor could a man well immerse him- 
self in one-fifth of a pint of water, as we saw they baptized 
with it. 

(8V We showed that Origen, the most scholarly of all the 
church Fathers, born eighty-four years after John's death, says 
of the altar of stones and wood built on the mountain in the 
dry time of three year's drouth, an ox laid upon that, on which 
"four pitchers of water" were poured, not barrels, there were 
no barrels then, but pitchers of water, Origen says, "they bap- 
tized the altar." Basil says it was baptism. We quoted their 
words when we introduced it. Dr. Graves attempted no re- 
ply worth the name. He mainly ignored it. 

We quoted the learned Greek Father of A. D. 190, Clemens 
Alexandrinus, who tells us of parties washing — one besprink- 
ling herself with water before devotion, we quoted the Greek 
—and Clemens held this an image of Moses' baptism handed 
down by the poets, Homer, etc. — for "the Jews daily baptize 
upon a couch," that is, sitting at meal on couches, as they did 
in Christ's day. He has never even noticed this testimony so 
sweeping. 

(9. We showed that ^a^^to, the root word of baptidzo. that 

gave it its primary meaning, primarily meant to sprinkle, 

never to immerse ; but it did mean in later Greek to dip, wherf^ 

it was partial, as a derived meaning from stain, color, as stain 

was a derivative of sprinkle. We showed that bapto, in earliest 

Greek, was used in the sense of sprinkle, p>our. That all its 

other meanings coald be accounted for on no other ground, 

applying the facts and laws of language as on baptidzo. Not 
34 



54^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 

only Homer, Esghylus, Sophocles, Aristophanes, etc., the 
earliest Greek, use it for sprinkle, stain, where it is by pour- 
ing, touching, etc., but later, Origen, Irenseus, llippolytus, 
the Syriac, Itala Ethiopic, and all the earliest versions, have 
translated it sprinkle. Dr. Graves never even referred to or .. 
noticed any of these facts. 

(10). We exposed his views of Jordan, of Philip and the 
eunuch, baptism at Enon, etc., showing it did not involve im- 
mersion at all. We showed that ek, out of Jordan, "out of 
the water," (Ex. li. 10 ; Josh. iv. 16 — 21, etc.), eis to Jordan, 
eis towards the sea, eis at the Jordan, occurred often in the 
Greek, where all admit it involved no entrance into or eh emer- 
gence from, the water. 

He appealed to Rom. vi. 3, 4, 5, and fought it desperately 
to hold the fort, as here was the Gibraltar of their views. But 
we showed that it was spiritual engrafting, as into Jesus Christ, 
that it was no allusion to water, or water baptism at all. So 
Beza, Hodge, Stuart held also. We then proved that baptized 
into Christ spiritually resulted in our spiritual incorporation 
with him, we die daily, are crucified with him, conformed to 
his death, which was by crucifixion; were "buried by the 
baptism" of the Spirit into his death, were planted, (Greek) 
born together, "engrafted together in the likeness of his 
death," which is spiritual crucifixion. That is not a dip under 
water. Hence, 2. Cor. iv. 10, 11, " we who live are always deliv- 
ered eis into death" by being thus crucified or engrafted 
together in the likeness of his death. The word in the Greek 
is never modal, and never implies burial or immersion, the 
word rendered plant, while a man "was buried with the burial 
of an ass, drawn forth and cast beyond the gates of Jerusa- 
lem," Jer. xxii. 19, left to be eaten of dogs, no envelopment. 
Yet these two words were their only hope. We have followed 
the Doctor as closely as death its victim in every attempted 
argument, while he has really made no effort even to meet or 
oflset the terrible array of facts, laws of language and authori- 
ties we have adduced against them. 

(11). The Laver. This plain but telling argument, he has 
not dared to attempt to grapple with either. We quoted Lev. 



Mode of Baptism. 547 

xi. 30-37, XV. entire. You can read, ISTum. xix. 3-22, especially 
verses 13 and 22; xxxi. 23; viii. 7, making the greater part of 
the "diverse baptisms" of Heb. ix. 10, the mode given in 
verses 13, 19, 21 of the same chapter. These showed that for 
hundreds of things men became ceremonially unclean, and 
had to baptize every day from one to three or four times. We 
showed that for any uncleanness they had to baptize. Mark 
vii. 4-8 ; Luke xi. 38 ; Eccl. xxiv. 24, etc. We showed that 
the great Laver, Ex. xxx. 18-20; xl. 30-32, 2 Chron. iv. 2-10, 
was for the priests to wash {ex anton) ek out of it, not in it. 
That it was twenty-one feet high to keep its waters from being 
defiled by any unclean person or thing touching them. That 
it had apertures, cocks, at the base, even with a man's 
face in height, whence the water ran for washing " out of it." 
That daily, hourly, baptisms were here performed, I read the 
law : " Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be un- 
clean." Num. xix. 22, and much else to the same effect. See 
Lev. XV., xi. and xvi. entire. I read where Dr. Graves, A. 
Campbell, Gale, Carson, Ingham, etc., all hold this washing 
to be immersion, baptism. That the J^ew Testament and 
Apocrypha apply baptidzo repeatedly to it. Immersion was im- 
possible, because forbidden. They dared not even touch the 
water in it, but wash of it. Had one immersed in it, all its 
nearly one thousand barrels would have had to have been emp- 
tied out, itself cleansed by fire,]^um. xxxi, 23, etc., and to have 
been filled before it could have been used. It required a leap 
twenty-one feet high to get into it. All the details we 
gave. The result was, at the smallest count, in the 1,500 
years from Moses till the commission, 1,645,500,000,000 
of baptisms among the Jews took place, baptism with 
Vv^ater, all by affusion, not one by dipping. It was insisted 
that Jews had private cisterns, some two even, twenty-five to 
twenty-seven feet deep, twelve to sixteen feet in diameter, to 
hold plenty of water against dry seasons, etc. But by the 
laws read, personal cleansing in them would not be allovved. 
Immersing one person in one would defile all its waters. Lev. 
xi. 30-35, iTum. xix. 22, etc., the vessel of wood must be 
emptied, rinsed, if earthenware, broken, if metalic, burned 
out and then sprinkled with water. All these facts show that 



548 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

they did not immerse. Hence all the oldest Greek Bibles, 
(MSS), fourth century, in Mark vii. 4, read " sprinkle them- 
selves" for those washings, because it was always simply a 
sprinkling, not even a pouring or heavier washing. Besides, 
who can believe that a decent family, besides being forbidden 
so often by their Bible, would drink, cook with, and baptize 
with water from three to five months or a year, in which, in a 
cistern, from four or five to ten men and women and children 
daily immersed themselves? How preposterous! Yet this 
was all so if immersionists are to be believed here. 

It was at the end of such a universal practice of aflusion 
that the Harbinger said, " I baptize with water, he shall bap- 
tize with the Holy Spirit." It was in the familiar use of the 
term, I Avill pour water on him that is thirsty, all modal allu- 
sions being to afiusion, sprinkle, pour water. Is. xliv. 3; Ezek, 
xxxvi. 25, etc., that the baptism of the Spirit was always a 
pouring of it on the people. 

(12). Finally, we come to the ancient versions. We have 
seen that the Syriac, Ethiopic, Itala, Yulgate, Sahidic, Bas- 
muric, the more modern Lusitania and Lutheran of the six- 
teenth century, all translate bapto sprinkle. We have seen 
the most learned of all the Greek Fathers, Origen, Irenseus, 
Hippolytus, do so. 

We have seen that the Itala and Jerome translate baptize in 
Chaldee tzeva, by sprinkle, oonspergatur and mfunderis. Yet 
they never render baptize by dip or immerse. If immerse 
was thfe word for baptidzo, if baptidzo were immergo or intingo 
in Latin, why there, in those two Latin versions, was the very 
place to exhibit it. Immerse is pure Latin anglicized. That 
was the chance to render it immerse or dip. But no, not once 
do they do so. All the versions for the first fifteen hundred 
years after Christ made from the original, are with us, every 
one supports aflusion, not one supports dipping. We have 
not time to review them. We bring up the grand old Syriac, 
the version so eulogized by Dr. J. R. Graves, quotation from 
Judd,so praised by Gale, the best version, most literal, accu- 
rate and pure ever made. We appeal to this as the version 
made in the apostolic age, wh^n a^.d where the translators 



Mode of Baptism. 549 

knew both tongues, and knew the apostolic practice. Be- 
tween James' version and the apostles a thousand years of 
dark ages roll between, a thousand years of superstition and 
■darkness throw their black shadow over the West. Fifteen 
hundred years roll between them and the apostles. But here 
is a version made in the apostolic age, in the very country 
where they preached, in the very language Jesus and the 
apostles preached in^ and what is its testimony? Baptidzo is 
rendered amad^ same in Arabic and Syriac. We saw that louo^ 
wash, pour, sprinkle, in Greek is rendered amad in Syriac 
before Christ's day. We saw immerse in Greek never was. 
IS'o case is found where immerse, none where dip, is ever ren- 
dered amad. But amad., to wash, made wet with rain, sprinkle, 
bedew, to moisten with dew, to perfuse, this word translates 
bajptidzo into the apostolic version. It translates it in the 
Arabic version in the golden age of Arabic learning, when 
Plato, Aristotle, etc., were translated into Arabic, when algebra 
was discovered by the Arabs as a science, and the courts of 
Al Raschid and Habroun were more academies than courts. 
In that age also baptidzo m the New Testament is translated by 
gasala, the word used for washing the face,, washing a babe only 
a day old, for a lady sprinkling aromatic waters or rose water 
on her head or hair. And is this immersion ? 

We showed that amad translated baptidzo in the apostolic 
age. That it applied, in Arabic and Syriac, to sprinkling, 
pouring — sach as falling rain., dew, water of any kind. It 
was to wash, cleanse. It never meant immerse in the New 
Testament. Its noun applies in John to the washing at 
Siloam. We saw that huo^ wash, pour, sprinkle is translated 
amad in Susana before the birth of Christ. ISTowhere is im- 
merse — buthidzo, pontidzo, katadiino, end.uo, dupto (dip) trans- 
lated amad^ nor is tabha immerse in Hebrew ever rendered 
amad. Not only does Catafago, who lived sixteen years in 
the country where this version was made, in the lexicon I 
hold in my hand, define the word — ■" the being wet with 
rain" — that is the only definition he gives it— but Castell's 
immortal work in which nineteen men, the most learned, the 
jTcbolarsMp of that renowned centurj of learnxn^^, seventeenth 



550 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

— who bad the researches of Kimchi, Maimonides, Scbindler, 
the BuxtorfTs and Pocouk before him — Selden and Golius — 
this based in Sjriac on the two great Manuscript Lexicons 
of two native Syrians in the ninth and tenth eenturieSy 
while their language was a living one-— being equivalent, 
then^ to twenty-one^ Catafa^^o making twenty-two^ Syriac 
lexicons and Arabic (Catafago's Arabic,) all giving sprinkle, 
moisten, wet with rain, dew, water as its prevailing^ meaning 
—immerse no Kew Testament meaning at all — only once 
in Old Testament there baptize does not occur in the original 
■ — such is the word that tmnslates haptidza in the Syriac and 
Arabic ISTew Testament. 

We saw that this old Syriac translates baptize {tahhal) the 
first time it ever ocoui^. Gen. xxxvii. 31, by sprinkle. 

Then we saw that ther-e were other versions of great value, 
in second, third and fourth centuries, all agreeing substanti- 
ally with this. Every one of them on till the close of the 
fifteenth century, so far as they were from the Hebrew and 
Greek equally sustained affusion— not <>ne favoring immer-> 
sion. 

We turned to that old Peshito, apostolic version, and 
found that affusion was sustained by its text throughout.. 
The Syriac and Arabic have another word for haptidza. It 
is tzev'iy^ pronounced tsevaga (heavier sound) in Arabic. It is 
used for haptidza in the second and subsequent centuries, and 
in Syriac and Chaldee for haptC' and hapUdzo, im.i'nersionists. 
assure us in days before Christ. Indeed it occurs in the 
fifth century before Christ in I>aniel several times, rendered 
bapto in Greek. Hither tzeva or amad. was used in the com- 
mission. Hence we read Ps. vi. 6: (T) : '^My couch have 
I baptized with my tears:' In Ezek. xxii. 24 r " Thou art the 
land that is not baptized; no, upon thee the rain has not 
fallen." So reads the old apostolic Syriac. In Luke viL 
38, 44, it occult twice— take the last — " Simon, into thy 
house I came ; water upon my feet you gave me not. But 
she with her tears my feet hath baptized. '^^ So verse 38 : 
'•' She began to baptize his feet with her tears." 

Oj sirj the best you can d,a is to infer tha.t they went 



Mode of Baptism. 551 

from four acres of forty-five feet deep water at Jerusalem to 
Jordan and Enon to get water enough in which to dip a* man, 
but it is all absurd. A. Campbell says, after pressing the 
case of the Eunuch — the " inference is'' he immersed him. 
Elder Wilkes urges that all he could adduce supported "the 
hypothesis" that Philip immersed him. They have only an 
inference — a process so doubtful in their estimation, that they 
utterly discredit all arguments of inference when they come to 
infant baptism. But here we ask for facts — we want no 
inference. We present no hypothesis. We know the mode 
where David's falling tears baptized the couch — the pouring 
rain baptized the land. The woman kneeled over the uusan- 
daled feet of Jesus — the tears dropped down one by one, 
and fell upon his feet — a clear affusion — not one-tenth nor 
hundreth the amount I always pour on babes I baptize, 
and he says : ^- My feet hath she baptized with her tears." 
No dark ages roll between this old Syriac and the apostles — 
no superstitious and multiplied accumulations of them. 

We showed that not till the beginning of the third century 
could immersion be found; it was not named as baptism ; and 
then it was by three dips, oil administered, honey and milk 
given, and they admitted they had no gospel authority for it. 
The first man who names mersion as baptism, also uses tingo 
constantly, adspergo and jperfundo — sprinkle for it, tingo being 
used as our baptize, not restricted to any mode. The moment 
we find mergo^ niergito applied, we find it three dips, and super- 
stition reigning. They believed there was " medical virtue " 
in the water and " sanctifying grace." Hence they mersed 
themselves into it to absorb and " imbibe " the regenerating 
efficacy. It was not for mode. 'No merit or importance attached 
to that. It was purely a superstition as to the cleansing power 
of water," under invocation of the priest." With TertuUian, 
mersion was the simplest way of absorbing the grace out of 
the water. 

Again, I challenge Dr. Graves, as over and again I have done, 
to find in all the world, where baptism was administered as Bap- 
tists do — by one "immersion" — dip — into the water earlier 
than the fourth century after Christ He cannot do it. The 



/ 



552 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

first time baptism in the world's history was administered by 
one '-immersion," by a single dip — performed as you perform 
it, was in the fourth century. It was then denounced by the 
whole church as a " heresy," "an innovation," and causing a 
"heresy!" (See Eunomius, Hist. Eccles., ch. xxvi. 282-284.) 

And now, dear friends, look at the facts. All Greek lexi- 
cons sustain us; seven-tenths of them utterly crush our oppo- 
nent. All Hebrew lexicons support us — all refute his even as 
a possible mode, as to the Bible. All Syriac lexicons support 
us, and crush his hopes of ever supporting his mode. All an- 
cient versions support us, not one tolerates his mode, let alone 
his wild theory. The only point is, are his people baptized at 
all, or not? All the classics support ours as the only mode. 
All the English arguments — the great Laver baptism — one 
trillion, six hundred and forty-live billions, five hundred mil- 
lions, at lowest count, all by aifusion — not one immersion — 
these are the explanations of the expression : "I baptize with 
water!" Such are the facts. Brethren we are baptized! The 
only question in doubt is, have these "Baptists" been baptized? 
If Dr. Graves' rules are to be adhered to ; if they are rightly 
applied by him, not a Baptist here is. baptized, save the few 
who may have gone out from us. Sirs, we have the facts. We 
intend to conquer a peace. Yes, sir, we mean it; "mean busi- 
ness!" You have to give it up. We have the facts, the 
authorities, the documents. We began not this war, you began 
it. We begged for peace; you clamored for war. E'ow you 
have it, and the result is upon you, before you. We repeat it, 
all the doubt is on your side; not a shadow on ours. You 
may be, you may not be baptized. We are baptized. If you 
wish, then, to be sure, certain, have no doubt, let it be as it was 
in apostolic days ; as the Spirit defines it, by pouring. The 
Lord pour upon you all his baptizing Spirit, 



THE 

GREAT CARROLLTON DEBA Tii, 

SECOND PROPOSITION. 

INFANT BAPTISM, AS PRACTICED BY THE METHODIST CHURCH 
SOUTH, IS AUTHORIZED BY THE WORD OF GOD. 

DR. DITZLER Affirms. 
DR. GRAVES Denies. 



[Dr. Ditzler's Opening Speech.] 

Gentlemen Moderators : — With Dr. Graves we agree that 
this subject has been treated superficially. Yes, by both par- 
ties to it. That both parties have largely, some exclusively, 
relied on superficial, outside issues and accidents of the gen- 
eral issue, both for defense and attack, instead of discovering 
some great and solid principle of truth around which all else 
revolves as connected with the matter. We are glad to see 
from his previous article in The Baptist of last August that 
we can have a fair and, I hope, full discussion on the real 
principles involved. 

It is agreed by all parties to this question that infant mem- 
bership, the greater matter, the genus, necessarily carries with 
it the less, the species, baptism, and therefore we are under 
no particular riccessity to discuss the species, baptism, unless 
we prefer to do so. We, however, will do so, and elaborately 
at that, in due time and order. 

N'or do we propose to be drawn aside from the main issue 
involved by minor, outside ones. In discussions of this kind. 



554 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

we often see, by arts of attack or defense, both parties drifting 
far off from the main question, and side issues, not involved 
in it, consume all the time. To quote what the learned say, 
when they, on all sides, can be quoted for a dozen antagonistic 
points here, is not to the matter. Hence, this book, the Bible, 
and generally in plain English dress, will be our standard 
throughout. It is a Bible question, and by that book it must 
stand or fall. 

My first great object will be to prove that God's people, 
the " saved by grace," in all ages, all time, constitute the church 
of God, the foundation and source of whose salvation was and 
is the redemption of Jesus Christ, " the beginner and the 
finisher of the faith " or plan of salvation, by which all are 
saved. And as morally responsible parties are to exercise 
faith, in order to obtain this salvation, yet infants are born 
within its gracious embrace and influence or provisions, so 
while adults are required to have faith and exercise the vir- 
tues of religious life to enjoy membership in God's family — 
flock, yea, household, church — infants are members thereof 
without need of these, and until by actual transgression and 
rejection of God, adults are entitled to their place in the 
church, and do have it; so infants until they grow to rebel and 
transgress and take on a positive character of active sinful- 
ness, are entitled to recognition in God's church. This en- 
tire hour shall be devoted, therefore, to the one great point, 
that carries all else with it — the oneness of God's church in 
all ages, through all dispensations, especially the two great 
dispensations known as Mosaic and Christian. 

Let it be understood, we do not confound church and state, 
the fleshy, national and spiritual Israel. We recognize the 
difference fully. But who can point out God's spiritual Israel 
to-day ? Where is there a complete organization that corre- 
sponds to it? Who can show it? Let this be remembered, 
for in just this phase of God's ancient church will our opponent 
have to make his issue. 

It is a little remarkable that John the Harbinger should come 
ftiid preach steadily for six months " to prepare the people for 
the Lord" at his coming, and with an eye to that should bap- 



Infant Baptism. 555 

tize, that Chnst might have a proper occasion of being made 
known or manifested to Israel — shown openly, known. See 
Robinson on (ophaueroo) and John xxi, 1, 14; 1 John i, 2; 
John i, 31. Yet never once uses the word church, though 
he announces the Messiah as about to " thoroughly purge his 
floor," elevate, purify and separate the chafl:* from the wheat, 
and repair thus "the breach." 

Jesus Messiah couies, is announced by " the baptizer," and 
for over two years never names the church, so far as our doc- 
uments go, and in all his discourses only twice, and then as a 
famiharterm: Matt, xvi, 18; xviii, 17 This leads us to a 
strict, though brief inquiry as to the use of this word church. 
The I^ew Testament gets it from the Old, all must admit. 
The Greek New Testament word is ekklesia, meaning called, 
called out, assembled, congregated, and by way of eminence, 
applied to God's people as the called. It is the immediate 
translation of the Hebrew MeM, meaning called, assembled. 
In the Greek Scriptures and Apocrypha familiar to the Jews, 
the word constantly occurs and is appropriated by the Savior 
and Apostles from the same which they used constantly. 

Like baptize, sanctify, etc., it is used both in a secular and 
strictly religions sense. Often in both the Old and New Tes- 
taments the word is applied to secular, worldly assemblies as 
well as to God's people. These are facts all admit. Hence 
the connection must show in what sense the word is used, as 
in all other words. Our James' translators never render 
the term by church in the Old Testament, and. some often 
render it congregation in the New, where we have church. 

Not only does the word constantly occur in the Old Testa- 
ment, but a few quotations will show that it was familiar to 
the literature of Jews before Christ, as it is now to us. For 
example, in the uninspired books B. C, 1 Maccabees xi, 56, 
we read, ".Joshua fulfilled his word, etc. Caleb for bearing 
witness in the church {en ekklesia) received the heritage, etc." 

Ecclesiasticus xxiv, 2, (1 in Greek) "in the church {ekklesia} 
of the Most High shall she open her mouth" — speaking of 
the coming Messiah under the name of Wisdom. Again, 
xliv, 15, speaking of the holy and good of all ages, naming 



556 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Enoch, Xoah, Abraham, etc., etc., he says, "the church shall 
show forth their praise," etc. 

With this we must remember they used the word in a 
double seuse just as we do now, the one as we do congrega- 
tion, or individual parts of the great family of God. To such 
a conception of God's people they, as we, applied various 
terms, of which the leading two were ekklesia and synagogue 
(sunagogue.) This term is used throughout the Old Testa- 
ment and in the ^ew for an assembly of the church. So 
James uses it ii, 2; Ps. xl, 10, 12, ekklesia is interchanged 
with synagogue [sunagogue). The term Christ used is in this 
sense, Matt, xviii, 17, 20. It means an assembly, congregation, 
quite the same as church. Then they, as we, used it (church) 
to represent all God's people on earth, as, e. g., Eph. ii, 22, 23; 
Col. i, 18, 21; I Cor. xii, 13; Tim. iii, 15, etc. 

The two occasions Christ had to use it, in the first it occurs 
in the broad sense of his whole church as an institution on 
earth, with all its agencies and functions. Matt, xvi, 18. In 
the other, it is in the other sense of a local congregation — tell 
it to the congregation — the membership in affiliation with 
that ofiending brother who is to be cut off, excommunicated. 

Now it is perfectly plain that as now, we can only know and 
come into visible, tangible contact with God's great spritual 
family, " the church of the living God," outwardly, we repeat, 
through means of its congregational, which is its visible rep- 
resentation ; yet these, aggregated, constitute at least the great- 
est part of his spiritual church (invisible on earth) so called, 
i. e., in this sense of representing all his, but in these assemblies, 
associations, congregations, its working and official acts are 
manifest, and in these we have our recognition to membership, 
and ordinances are administered, church duties recognized; so 
it was in the former time. It only wants a glance of the eye 
at what confronts us to-day, to see all that confronts as as to 
the past. 

We have thus elaborately explained these matters, and the 
differences between the spiritual church as a whole, and its 
doings as a people separated into visible, tangible assemblies, 
that you might have a clear conception of the way member- 



Infant Baptism. 557 

ship ill all ages has been recognized officially, and a knowl- 
edge of this question. 

Hence, as now, so anciently, sinners might assemble, and 
did assemble, with God's people in the temple, (in the syna- 
gogues later) corresponding to our churches built now, 
mingled with them; and, as now, so then, in the fellowship of 
the church visible, represented by its congregations, there 
were " sinners in Zion." So now, and in apostolic days as 
recognized by Christ, Matt, xviii, 17; by the parable also, 
" Let both grow together." 

1^0 w, then, in every sense that God now has a church on earthy 
with its offices and ordinances visibly displayed, its functions acknow- 
ledged, he had in the past ages, and essentially for the same ends. 

Let us carefully now take up each point involved, and then 
weave them all into one solid texture. Then God had a peo- 
ple in the ages before the incarnation, called throughout the 
Old Scriptures, the uninspired Apocrypha, and in the ISTew Tes- 
tament, called the church, in which infants were recognized 
as members or having membership. 

1. The Old Testament term, we have seen, occurs constantly. 
The one borrowed in the ITew, Christ and Paul as Jews to 
Jews use a term for long centuries familiar, and used by them 
exactly as by us, in a three-fold sense (1) for any assembly, se- 
cular, etc.; (2) for individual congregations of God's people; 
(3) for the whole family of God. 

2. L) the Apocryphal writings before Christ, we see, it is used 
exactly as in the New Testament, for all God's people. 

3. Li Acts vii, 38, " This is he that was in the church in the 
wilderness." 

In Hebrews ii, 12, Paul quotes it from David as found in the 
Psalm xxii, 22, eleven centuries B. C, " In the midst of the 
church, will I sing praise unto thee." Here now we have Paul 
applying the word church to the people of God in their spiritual 
capacity, praising God. The only question here is, did he use 
it in the carnal sense, or as we, in the religious sense. The 
words and the connections both make it plain that he uses it 



55^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 

as David meant it, in the religious sense. Read the entire 
connection : 

Hebrews ii, 9. But we see that Jesus, who was made a little lower than 
the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that 
he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. 

10. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all 
things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captaui of their 
salvation perfect through sufferings. 

11. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of 
one, for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, 

12 Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren ; in the midst of 
the church will I sing praise unto thee. 

13. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again. Behold I and 
the children which God hath given me. 

Here notice — Jesus Christ, we all agree, is the party here 
referred to by David and Paul. That he is here represented 
as the captain of their salvation, who in bringing many sons 
unto glory, should be made perfect through sufferings. He 
sanctities them, is one with them, all one, and calls them 
brethren ; nay, they are the children which God hath given 
him. In no place in the 'New Testament is the word church 
used in a clearer light for a spiritual, religious body. 

Indeed, but for the blinding influences of party prejudices, 
it might and would naturally be asked, did not the great Jeho- 
vah desire the people he led, planted as a vine, legislated for, 
was a husband unto them, engraved them on his hand, did he 
not desire, and legislate for them, that they might be a spiritual 
people ? And if they, or any part of them failed, whose fault 
was it ? Was it not theirs ? Does he not ask, " What more 
he could do that he had not done ? Do not many, yea, thous- 
ands fail and millions now, and hundreds of millions, to com- 
ply with God's laws and terms ; but does it prove that he has 
no spiritual church, or that the failure is because of any essen- 
tial defect in his economy ? 

We have shown now, that in the centuries before the incar- 
nation, God had a church, in the I^ew Testament sense of the 
word, when properly and religiously, not secularly, applied. 

Second, though not necessary to our point, yet because men 
have been so wild on this subject, that we wish to place it in 



Infant Baptism. 559 

the clearest scriptural light, that all may see and understand, 
we proceed in the second place to show that they worshipped 
God and kept his ordinances, read and heard read the scrip- 
tures in family capacity and as visible congregations as now. 
They had their family services, as the case of Abraham, 
Gen. xviii, 19; Job, Zachariah, Joshua, xxiv, 15, etc., show; 
in the temple, in the great congregation. Psalms xxii, 25 ; the 
assemblies of the upright, xxvi, 12; cxlix, 1, 2; xv, 1, 2; 
Ixxxv, 1, 2, 7, 10, 11, etc.. etc., and after the captivity they 
worshipped in synagogues as well as in the temple. The 
whole Bible is full of proofs that they had church order, rules, 
regulations, elders, deacons or officers of the special congre- 
gations as we have now; indeed, after which ours in Apostolic 
days were clearly chosen, as Lightfoot, Webster, Selden and 
others show. That members were liable to expulsion then as 
now, for immorality, etc., Ezra x, 8 ; v. 12, 13 ; 1 Kings ii, 26, 
27, as well as Gen. xvii, 14 ; John ix, 22, 34, 35 ; xvi, 2, show. 
The Jews had twenty-four great and prominent reasons enu- 
merated from the books of Moses, for w^hich they excommu- 
nicated people. 

Both Lightfoot and Selden copy them at length, the one in 
his Horse Hebraicse et Tal ; the other, in his Sunedriis. In it 
occurs this language: "Whosoever is excommunicated by 
the president of the Sanhedrim, is cut off from the whole 
church of Israel." In some 'cases they w^ere suspended till 
reparation, confession, etc., could be made; if not, and found 
guilty, they were shammatized, (corresponding to our ana- 
thematized ; 1 Cor., xvi. 22. See Buxtorif and Castell on this 
word ; latter, page 379.^-6), " excommunicated totally and 
finally." Yet these expulsions did not forfeit an ordinary 
citizen's political rights. Nay, often all their highest political 
franchises were taken away, yet their religious and ecclesias- 
tical rites, laws, and privileges were allowed and exercised by 
them, though church and state were so united there. Yet 
you see in all this they were distinct also. At times, the state 
from without, conquering state, as Rome, or the overpower- 
ing the authorities of faction, or oth^^r influences, changed the 
ministry, intei-rupted the order of things, but that w^as no 



560 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

more a peculiarity or accident to the church, than that such 
things have been since the days of Pauh During the late 
war many, many just such things occurred. 

3. This church was spiritual in the same sense that the 
church is spiritual to-day. It had bad ministers and members 
in it then, laws to regulate their conduct; it had bad members 
and ministers in it in Paul's and John's day. Acts xx. 29, 30 ; 
Gal. xi. 4; 3 John, iii. 8, 10; 2 Peter, ii. 1 ; and as we have 
now. 

1. Jesus Christ was their spiritual life and the object of 
their faith. You are all aware that dividing our Bible into 
chapters and verses is a modern invention, accomplished in 
the sixteenth century. Often the divisions are very unfortu- 
nate and break the connection, as all scholars agree. In He- 
brews, from the last of chapter x. to xii., this is done. Paul 
tells us, Hebrews x. 38, 39 : " l!Tow the just shall live by faith." 
Here he lays down a great truth, copied from the Old Testa- 
ment (Hab. xi. 9.) Yea, " believe to the saving of the soul," 
39. He proves this from the record of th-e worthies in the 
Old Testament whence he drew his text. The catalogue runs 
clear through the eleventh chapter — they died in faith. 
"Moses esteemed the reproach of Christ." Abraham, as 
Christ tells us, saw Christ's day, and was glad. These, then, 
all proved, fully tested the fact that it is by faith the just live. 
The}^ are, therefore, (ch. xiii. 1, 2), "a cloud of Witnesses" to 
the saving efficacy of faith in Christ, as those who saw the 
promises afar off * * and embraced them," (xi. 13); and, 
therefore, (xii. 2) Jesus is declared to be " the founder (begin- 
ner) and the finisher of the faith" {taes pisteos) presented ch. 
x. 38, 39, illustrated throughout ch. xi., making the cloud of 
" witnesses" to it, with the Jesus tvhom he introduces in 
chapters i. and ii., as the one whom angels adore, the captain 
of the salvation of his people, and hence "the founder and 
consummator of th^ faith." In James' version, the definite arti- 
cle (taes) is thrown out, and, in italics " our'' is substituted, 
destroying the beauty of Paul's sense, as far as possible. 

Jesus Christ then was the object of their faith. This is 



Infant Baptism. 5'')i 

further taught in 1. Peter i. 9, 11; John i. 12, 18; (ial. iii. 6, 
9; 1. Cor. x. 3, 4 ; Hebrews iv. 2; Is. liii. 4, 6, 11. 

1 Peter i. 9: " Receiving the end of your faith, even the salvation of 
your souls. 

"10. Of which salvation the prophets have inquired and searched dil- 
igently, who prophesied of the grace that should come unto you : 

*'ll. Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ 
which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings 
of Christ, and the glory that should follow." 

John i. 12: "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to 
become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name : 

"13. Which were born, not of blood, nor of the wiU of the flesh, 
nor of the wiU of man, but of God ; 

"14. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, ( and we be- 
held his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of 
grace and truth. 

"17. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by 
Jesus Christ. 

"18. No man hath seen God at any time ; the only begotten Son, which 
is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." 

Here we learn in John that before the incarnation, declared 
in verse 14, he, Christ, " was in the world; the world was 
made by him;" as verses I and 3 declared ''all things were 
made by him," and "without him was nothing made that was 
made." But not only is he the source of all favor and crea- 
tive energy, 3, of "life," 4, and "light," 5, but all regenerating 
graoe is through him ; ch. v. 12 and 13; all who believed " were 
born of God." Then he recurs to it in verses 17 and 18. No 
man ever saw God. He is only revealed through Christ. 
Hence the only begotten Son, this Word, this source of all 
light and life, revealed or declared him. Moses gave the 
written law, but ( not as in our version again where the trans- 
lators never knew what John was talking about, leave out his 
definte article " the " ) the law was given by Moses, but the 
GRACE (he charts) and the truth came through {he alaetheia) 
Jesus Christ. See, too, how he contrasts the " they and them" 
with the " we" and " us " of verse 14, where he was incarnated 
and tabernacled [eskenosen) among us; dwelt in a veil ol flesh 
as his glory anciently shone in the tabernacle, from which 

name comes the verb in the Greek here. How beautiful ! 
35 



562 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

2s'ow let us see another example of liow the light and the 

truth were revealed to them in Moses^ dav. 

1 Cor. X, 2, ' ''And were all baptized iinro 'Moses In the cloud and in the 
sea," 

3. "And did all eat the same spiritual meat" 

4. "And did all drink the same spiritual drink ; for they drank of that 
splritnal Eock, that followed them ; and that Eock was Christ " 

Xeed we comment on this lan^ua^e to show that Christ 
comes unto his own, and that thej were born of God? Thej 
ate spiritnal meat, drank spiritual drink ; hence they drank 

of Christ, the Rock of their salvation. TTas that spiritual? 

Do vou desire more? Does not Paul show at length. Rom. 
iv.. 11. Gal. iii. 6. 9. that Abraham, the representative man, 
before the ceremonial or ritualistic day of the church, and 
David, the representative of the rituahstic age or dispensation, 
were both pardoned exactly alike, by faith, and both as we 
are ? Does he not tell tis, Heb. iv. 2 : Gal. iii. 8, that the Gospel 
was preached to them under both dispensations ? Do jon want 
a sample of how it was preached? 

Isa- liii, 3. "He is despised and rejected of men ; a man of sorrows, and 
acquainted with grief ; and we hid as it were our faces from him ; he was 
d^pised, and we esteemed him not. 

4. "SurelT he hath tome our srriei^. and carriei our s^orrows, vet we did 
^esteem him stricken, smitten of Grod. and afflicted. 

■5. "But he ^was ^rounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our 
iniquiti^ : the chastisement of oin" p-eace was upon hi m ; and with his 
stripes we are healed 

6. "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to 
his own ^ray : and the Lord hath laid on hj-m the iniquity of us all. 

7. "He was oppressed and he was afflicted, yet he opened not his mouth; 
he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearer? 
is dtmib. so he opened not his niouth. 

8. 'He was taken from prison and from judgment ; and who shall 
declare his generation ? for he was cut off out of the land of the living • 
for the transgressions of my people was he stricken. 

* ~r ^ ^ ~ . ^ ^ * ^ 

11. "He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied ; by his 
knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many ; for he shall bear their 
iniquities," 

Ah I what preaching was fhis ? ^ould that we had more 

of it now, instead of so much mere twaddle, butterfly rhetoric 



Infant Baptism. 563 

and emasculated preaching we too often hear! Here Isaiah, 
standing at the temple door, or by the altar pointing to the 
bleeding lamb as the type of the great sufferer, represents him 
as already having come in the flesh, as already having bled, 
died in our stead. For he was as a Lamb slain from the found- 
ation of the world, to the faith ol those who saw afar off and 
embraced the promises. Thus Isaiah uses the present tense 
and speaks of Christ's work of redemption as though already 
accomplished eight hundred years before he actually hung 
upon the cross. 

4th. So these people of God, stretching through the ages, 

all gathered to the cross, as the trophies of redemption through 

Jesus Christ, to whom all in heaven will owe redemption ; to 

whose blood all redeemed ones will ascribe their salvation. 

Paul, in his burst of holy enthusiasm, applies the term church 

m the strongest and most emphatic sense. 

Heb. xii. 23. "To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, 
which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits 
of just men made perfect." 

What a strong expression. The general assembly and 

church of the first-born which are written in heaven ; in the 

Lamb's book of life. Wonder if there are any infants there? 

If so, as on earth, so in heaven, they constitute a part of the 

church of the firstborn — of those in heaven. 

Ephesians iii. 14. For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our 
Lord Jesus Christ. 

15. "Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named." 

Here the Apostle's eye sweeps the whole human horizon ; 

over all time, past and future; God's church is composed of 

God's whole family in heaven and on earth, and they are all 

named in honor of Jesus Christ. Hence in coming to Christ 

we now are represented as joining them thus: 

Heb. xii. 22. "But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of 
the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company 
of angels." 

It is this august body that we of the Christian Dispensation 

are represented as uniting ourselves with, in accepting Christ, 

which Paul denominates as quoted above, "the general 

assembly and church of the first-born." 



564 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

5. To the Church, developed out of God's covenant and 
as"surance of redemption, in all the prophets, God gave prom- 
ises of perpetuity, permanent success and constant develop- 
ment into broader and more extensive proportions until the 
consummation of all things. 

Of these, such as Isaiah xxx: 5; xliii: 32; xliv: 4; Iviii: 
11-14; xlii: 19; lix and Ivi entire, applied in part by Paul, 
Gal. iv: 26-28; Rom. xi: 1, 5, 7, 11, 16, 26 are sufficient sam- 
ples. 

Let us examine and apply some of these constant promises 
of God to Israel. If they are not true and God's promises 
false, where can we stand ? 

Isaiah xl ix : 5. Though Israel be not gathered, yet shall I be glorious 
ill the eyes of the Lord, and my God shall be my strength. 

6. And he said, It is a hght thing that thou shouldst be my servant to 
raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel : I will 
also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation 
unto the ends of the earth. 

8. Thus saith the Lord, In an acceptable time have I heard thee, and in 
a day of salvation have I helped thee : and I will preserve thee, and give 
thee for a covenant of the people, to establish the earth, to cause to inherit 
the desolate heritages. 

9. That thou mayest say to the prisoners. Go forth ; to them that are in 
darkness. Shew yom-selves. 

13. Sing, O heavens ; and be joyful, O earth ; and break forth into sing- 
ing, O mountains : for the Lord hath comforted his people and will have 
mercy upon his afflicted. 

"14. But Zion said. The Lord hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath for- 
gotten me. 

"15. Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have 
compassion on the son of her womb ? Yea, they may forget, yet will I not 
forget thee. 

"16. Behold, I have graven thee upon the palms of my hands ; thy walls 
are continually before me. 

"17. Thy children shall make haste ; thy destroyers and they that made 
thee waste shall go forth of thee. ^ 

"18. Lift up thine eyes round about, and behold ; all these gather them- 
selves together, and come to thee. As I live, saith the Lord, thou shalt 
surely clothe thee with them all, as with an ornament, and bind them on 
thee, as a bride doeth. 

"19. For thy waste and thy desolate places, and the land of destruction 
shall even now be too narrow by reason of the inhabitants, and they that 
swallowed thee up shall be far away. 



Infant Baptism. 565 

''20. The children which thou shalt have, after thou hast lost the other, 
shall say again in thine ears, The place is too strait for me ; give place 
to me that I may dwell. 

"21. Then shalt thou say in thine heart. Who hath begotten me these, 
seeing I have lost my children, and am desolate, a captive, and removing 
to and fro ? and who hath brought up these ? Behold, I was left alone ; 
these, where had they been ? 

"22. This saith the Lord God, Behold, I wiU lift np mkie hand to the 
Gentiles, and set up my standard to the people : and they shall bring thy 
sons in then' arms, and thy daughters shall be carried upon their shoulders. ' ' 

How strong, how complete these promises. Were they 
true, or were thej not ? 

They, in large part, yet remain to be fulfilled. But who be- 
lieves that all Gentile nations, the fulness of the Gentiles, were 
to be converted and brought as such, to the national Israel; 
the political, or politico-religions Israel ? JSTobody. The l!^ew 
Testament writers apply these prophecies to the conversion of 
Gentile nations, and we, and all Christian expositors, so apply 
them. Do we believe them ? But God's remnant, the pre- 
served of Israel, were to be given for a light to the Gentiles, 
that thoQ raayest be m.y salvation unto the end of the earth, 5 
6. Yea, 6, 8,1 will preserve thee; the Jewish Israel; the rem- 
nant, and give thee for a covenant of the people, to establish 
the earth, to cause to inherit the desolate places. All the 
converted Gentiles were to come to thee ; thou shalt clothe 
thee with them all; v 18. Here Isaiah declares or God 
through him, these great truths, and all admit the meaning. 

It was Zion, the remnant, the church that had these prom- 
ises. But Zion said, the Lord (to whom Jehovah declared 
himself a husband, yea, married to her, Zion said, the Lord, 
[my husband]) hath forsaken me ; forgotten me ; v 14. Then 
read what tender expressins follow to encourage. When Zion 
mourns the loss of so many to be broken off, ''lost," v 20, and 
the place made vacant by the loss of so many broken off by 
unbelief, God promises that such shall be the inflow and com- 
pensation from Gentile converts to fill up the place made va- 
cant by the loss of the Jews, that the place will be too strait for 
me; v 20, 22. 

Hence it is said the cords shall be lengthened, the stakes 
strengthened : that is, the fallen tabernacle should be ^^rehuilt;" 



566 The (Jreat Carrollton Debate. 

^'raised up" ^^strengthened." Christ would repair the breach, 
restore the paths. 

Hence he was to he called the Restorer; yea, Isaiah ; Iviii, 12, 
saith, And they that shall be of these shall build the old waste 
places; thou shalt raise up the foundations of many genera- 
tions ; and thou shalt be called the Repairer of the breach^ the 
Restorer of paths to walk in.'" Hence. 

Isaiah Ix; 1. "Arise, shine: for thy hght is eome, and the Glory of 
the Lord is risen upon thee. 

''3. And the Gentiles shall come to thy light, and kings to the brightness 
of thy rising. 

"4. lift up thine eyes round about, and see : all they gather themselves 
together, they eome to thee : thy sons shall come from far and thy daugh- 
ters shall be nursed at thy side. 

"5 Then thou shalt see, and flow together, and thine heart shall fear, 
and be enlai'ged ; because the abundance of the sea shall be converted un- 
to thee ; the forces of the Gentiles shall come unto thee. 

11. Therefore thy gates shall be open continually; they shall not be 
shut day nor night ; that men may bring unto thee the forces of the Gen- 
tiles, and that their kings may be brought. 

15, Whereas thou hast been forsaken and hated, so that no man went 
through thee I will make thee an eternal excellency, a joy of many gener- 
ations. 

Such are the encourao;ements held out to Zion in Isaiah's 
day. If our position be wrong, all these prophecies have failed 
and do fail forever. 

It is in view of such facts, that Christ declared. Matt, xvi^ 
18, On this rock will I build; oikodomceso, rebuild, to rebuild^ 
renew, to build up, establish, confirm. See Robinson's 
Greek lexicon on oikodomeo. Wahl, 2d large edition, 1829, 
renders it also rebuild, reneiv, {recBdiJico, instauro), also to aug- 
ment, give increase to, cause that the structure shall be continued^ 
etc., [augeo, incrementum facia, est scruttura coniinuatur, etc.) 
Stokius also gives " to confirm, establish." So Peter viewed it^ 
^vnen he said, Acts xv,, 16, '-After this I will return, and will 
build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down, and 
I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up" 

And, like Isaiah and the prophets, he tells why: 

'•That the residue of men might seek after the Lord, and all the 
Gentnes, upon whom my name is called^ saith the Lord,^^ who doeth aU 
th^e things J' 



Infant Baptism. 567 

Hence Christ's assuming the entire government, taking all 

on his own shoulders (Is. ix. 6, 7) and instead of representing 

him as establishing a 7iew government from thence, he only 

speaks of its ^Hncrease^'' to which there shall be no end. He 

was to establish the Kingdom of David; the fallen tabernacle. 

Hence, 

Isaiah x, 20. "And it shall come to pass in that day, that the remnant 
of Israel, and such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more 
again stay upon him that smote them ; but shaU stay upon the Lord, the 
Holy One of Israel, in truth. 

21. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the 
mighty God. 

22. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the sea, yet a rem- 
nant of them shall return: the consumption decreed shall overflow with 
righteousness. 

24. And it shall come to pass in that day, that his burden shall be taken 
away from oft* thy shoulder, and his yoke from off thy neck, and the yoke 
shall be destroyed because of the anointing. 

J^otice now, that God here promised that when Messiah 
should be anointed, a remnant^ as Joel declares also, should be 
spared, as he ever does afterwards, as seen chap, xlix, already 
quoted. Paul takes up these facts and makes his great argu- 
ment out of them. 

Rom. X, 20. But Esaias is very bold, and saith, I was found of them 
that sought me not ; I was made manifest unto them that asked not 
after me. 

21. But to Israel he saith, All day long I have stretched forth my hands 
unto a disobedient and gainsaying people. 

Rom. xi, 1, I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. 
For I also am an Israelite of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benja- 
min. 

2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not 
that the Scripture saith of Ehas ? how he maketh intercession to God 
agamst Israel, saying, 

3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars ; 
and I am left alone, and they seek my Hfe. 

4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved 
unto myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the 
image of Baal. 

5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according 
to the election of grace. 

11. I say then. Have they stumbled that they should fall? God forbid ; 
but rather through their fall salvation is come unto the Gentiles, for to 
provoke them to jealousy. 



568 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

12. Now if the fall of them he the riches of the world, and tlie diminlsh- 
ing of them the riches of the Gentiles ; how much more their fullness. 

13. For I speak to you Gentiles, inasmuch as I am the apostle of the 
Gentiles, I magnify mine office: 

14. If by any means I may provoke to emulation them which are my 
flesh, and might save some of them. 

15. For if the casting away of them be the reconcilmg of the world, 
what shall the receiving of them be, but Ufe from the dead ? 

16. For if the first-fruit be holy the lump is also holy ; and if the root be 
holy so are the branches. 

17. And if some of the branches be broken off", and thou, being a wild 
olive tree, wert grafFed in among them, and with them partakest of the 
root and fatness of the olive tree ; 

18. Boast not against the branches. But if thou boast, thou bearest not 
the root, but the root thee. 

19. Thou wilt say then, The branches were broken off, that I might be 
graffed in. 

20. Well ; because of unbehef they were broken off, and thou standest 
by faith. Be not high-mined, but fear. 

21. For if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also 
spare not thee. 

22. Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God : on them which 
fell, severity ; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness : 
otherwise thou also shalt be cut off. 

23. And they also, if they abide not stiU in unbelief, shall be graffed 
in : for God is able to graff them in again. 

24. For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, 
and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good oUve tree ; how much 
more shall these, which be the natural branches, be grafted into their own 
olive treee. 

25. For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mys- 
tery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits, that bhndness in part is 
happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in. 

26. And so all Israel shaU be saved ; as it is written. There shall come 
out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob : 

27. For this is my covenant unto them, when I shall take away their 
sins. 

Here we see a mass of truth. This remant, Paul reminds 
the Gentiles, was God's covenant unto them, as we quoted it 
from Isaiah— this remnant should be God's covenant for salva- 
tion unto the end of the earth. 

N"otice clearly that the unbelieving Jews who reject the 
Messiah, stumbled, were blinded, blindness in part — not to all, 



Infant Baptism. 569 

only in part — happened to Israel. Hence they fell, were cast 
away, were broken off. From what were they broken off? 
From what cut off? They had been the natm^al branches, 
into whose vacated place believing Gentiles were brought in — 
grafted in. If at any future time the unbelieving Jews recieve 
Christ, be converted, they will be grafted in again, into the 
relation and place thej^ lost, from which they fell in rejecting 
Messiah. But into what were Gentiles brought ? Into the 
Church, you say. Yes, and out of it unbelief put the rejecting 
Jews. If they shall hereafter believe, and thus come into 
Christ's church, that is receiving them, as God is able to graft 
them in again. And when that is done, Paul declares that in 
that act, they are grafted into their own good olive tree, from 
which unbelief had separated, cut them off. 

In accordance with these facts, Paul, Heb. viii, 8, says : I 
will complete (sunteleso). So A. Campbell has it in his essay ; 
it is to complete, consummate, perfect. Schleusner, Robinson, 
Wahl, &c., a new covenant with the house (church) of Israel. 

Sixth — Two leading kinds of ordinances distinguished the 
Levitical or ritualistic period of the church, the one class 
memorial, another class symbolic of the necessity of purity 
and innocence. The latter in two most prominent parts alone 
demand attention. One was circumcision, instituted in 
Abraham's day, (Gen. xvii, 11, 14, 24, 25), but afterwards 
to be administered to children at 8 days old (Gen. xxi, 4.) 

Now this ordinance was ever after that symbolic of the 
purity of the heart, and was so deemed by the prophets and 
Paul. A few of many passages will sufficiently show this. 
Gen. xvii, 11, it was to be a token. Paul quotes it Pom. iv, 11. 
"And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the 
righteousness of the faith which he had, yet being uncircum- 
cised : that he might be the father of all them that believe, 
though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness might be 
imputed unto them also." 

It was administered at 8 days old, yet was to be in all after 
life, a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. But one 
says, th'it was only so to Abraham. Then why does Paul 



570 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

make it so to all who proved true to their God ? Hear him in 
Romans again, ii, 28, 29 : 

28. For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that circum- 
cision, which is outward in the flesh : 

29. But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly ; and circumcision is that of 
the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter ; whose praise is not of men, 
but of God. 

And why does he show it so pointedly. Col. ii, 11, 12: "In 
whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made 
without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh 
by the circumcision of Christ." 

Hence constantly the prophets said "circumcise your hearts 
to love the Lord your God," from Moses in Deuteronomy until 
Jeremiah and Ezekiel's day. Thus an ordinance that was 
purely sj-mbolic, was yet administered to infants, and in all 
afterlife it was to be of symbolic import. But my argument 
has no necessary dependence on that fact at all. I narrate 
these things to make all complete. 

Regarding this as parenthetical, we resume our identity 

argument. In Matt. xxi. 

"33. Hear another parable: There was a certain householder, which 
planted a vineyard, and hedged it round about, and digged a wine press 
in it, and built a tower, and let it out to husbandmen, and went into a far 
country. 

34. And when the time of the fruit drew near, he sent his servants to 
the husbandmen, that they might receive the fruits of it. 

35. And the husbandman took his servants, and beat one, and killed 
another, and stoned another. 

36. Again, he sent other servants more than the first ; and they did unto 
. them likewise. 

37. But last of all he sent unto them his son, saying, They will rever- 
ence my son. 

38. But wlien the husbandmen saw the son, they said among themselves 
This is the heir ; come, let us kill him, and let us seize on his inheritance 

39. And they caught him, and cast him out of the vineyard, and slew 
him. 

"40. When the Lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do 
unto those husbandmen ? 

"41. They say unto him. He will miserably destroy those wicked men, 
and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen, which shall rendei 
him the fruits in their seasons. 



Infant Baptism. 571 

" 42. Jesus saith unto them, Did ye never read in the Scriptures, The 
stone which the buiiders rejected, the same is become the head of the 
comer : this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes ? 

"43. Therefore say 1 unto you, The kingdom of God shall be taken 
from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof." 

Here jou see the force of this beautiful parable. It repre- 
sents the kingdom of God as entrusted to the Jews, as a vine- 
yard is leased out. He sent prophets, later he sent other 
prophets, as the husbandmen sent servants, but last of all as 
the one sent his own son, so God sent his only son, and they 
slew him. What will he do? We saw Paul's letter to the Ro- 
mans ch. xi., what he could do to the unbelieving ; they were 
cut off, cast away, the kingdom is taken from them and given 
into the hands of the Gentiles, the Jewish remnant, the pre- 
served were God's covenant to the Gentiles, they brought in. 

And now^ let us follow it out in the actual record : 

When Christ came, he was born, reared, lived in the Jewish 
Church. He complained not of its principles, but of the vast 
numbers of those who violated them. He gathered together 
all the most pious he could for three years and six months. 
Great numbers received him, believed, were saved. Great 
numbers, the vast majority, ultimately rejected him, as the 
prophets plainly indicated. He sent out his ministers, limited 
to Israel. To whom does he send them ? To the lost sheep 
af the house of Israel. Matt. x. 6. 

Thus for three years and a half, he seeks to restore the 
paths, repair the breach, and gather together the outcasts, for 
they were as sheep without a shepherd. He is a Jew — they 
are all Jews. They are ''Jews inwardly J^ Israelites indeed 
without guile. Simeon, the Marys, Elizabeth, Zachariah, 
were of the same class — the apostles, disciples ( 70) and others 
of the remnants waiting for the promise to redeem Israel, 
Thus works he till his crucifixion. What do we find on Pen- 
tecost? For days they had waited the promised descent of 
the Spirit. They elect one in the place of Judas, to do the 
work of a church. When the Spirit descended, whom does 
it find waiting and blest? There has been a great want of 
attention just here, as in so many other matters. 



572 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Acts ii. 1, "And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were 
all with one accord m one place. 

"2. And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing 
mighty wind, and it flUed all the house where they were sitting. 

*' 3. And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and 
it sat upon each of them. 

" 4. And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak 
with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance. 

" 5. And there were dweUing at Jerusalem Jews, devout men, out of, 
every nation under heaven. 

"6. Now when this was noised abroad, the multitude came together, 
and were confounded, because that every man heard them speak in his 
own language. 

"7. And they were all amazed and marvelled, saying one to another, 
Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? 

"8. And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were 
born? 

"9. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopo- 
tamia, and in Judea, and Capadocia. in Pontus, and Asia. 

"10. Phrygia, and Pamphyha, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya 
about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes. 

"11. Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in owr tongues ^Ae 
wonderful works of God. 

" 12. And they were all amazed, and were in doubt, saying one to an- 
ther, What meaneth this ? 

"13. Others mocking said. These men are full of new wine. 

" 14. But Peter, standing up with the eleven, lifted up his voice, and 
said unto them, Ye men of Judea, and all ye that dweU at Jerusalem, 
be this known unto you, and hearken to my words : 

"15. For these are not drunken, as ye suppose, seeing it is but the third 
hour of the day. 

" 16. But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel : 

" 17. And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour 
out of my Spirit upon all flesh ; and your sons and yom' daughters shall 
prophesy, and your young men shall see visions, and your old men shall 
dream dreams." 

The points we wish to call your attention to here are, (1) 
the apostles do the preaching, verse 11, some days before they 
were assembled with one hundred and twenty disciples of 
Jesus. Acts i, 15. 



Infant Baptism. 573 

(2). The Spirit falls upon a vast multitado of Christian be- 
lievers, ii, 5. And there were dwelling (at this time) at Jeru- 
salem, Jews, devout young men. God-fearing, pious men, out 
of [from] every nation under heaven. On all these the Spirit 
falls. The uproar of joy brings the motely crowd of scoffing 
Jews, who had crucified the Messiah. See verse 6 and 7, 
above. They say, are not all these which speak Galileans ? 
And how hear we every man in our own tongue (our dialect) 
wherein we were born, Parthians and Medes, etc ? See 
verse 9 and 11, above. We do hear them (all these people 
from every nation under heaven, Jews, pious men, sojourning 
in Jerusalem during the great annual convocation, Pentecost) 
speak in our own tongues, the wonderful works of God ; verse 
11. Hence this scoffing crowd were all amazed — verse 12 ; 
and some of them, mocking, said these men are full of new 
wine. Peter shows the facts, and quotes Joel in proof that 
such vast crowds should receive the Spirit ; verse 17. Here, 
then, are the fruits, so far, of Christ's labors. These are the 
assembled outcasts, gathered together, to whom the Gentiles 
should be converted. The identity of the church is thus com- 
plete and put beyond all possible cavil. On that day three 
thousand of those scoffijrs were converted, and added to them 
(the pious remnants) and daily the Lord added the saved to 
the church. The church is continued. The unbelieving were 
rejected by the Almighty, and all such, whether the persecu- 
ting Saul or the wicked Caiaphas, had to now receive Messiah 
as a condition of uniting with the preserved of Israel and 
such as were escaped of the house of Jacob. 

To add to these facts would be to add another hue to the 
rainbow, or seek to color the violet, or tint the rose afresh. 
It is complete enough. This is becoming the Almighty. It 
gives us a standpoint against infidelity that our opponents can 
never have. The law of commandments contained in ordi- 
nances he took out of the way, nailing it to the cross; Eph. ii, 
14, 16; as they were added because of transgression, Gal. iii, 
16, 19,; till the time of reformation, Heb. ix, 10. 

As all parties agree, infants were in this church ; they received 
its outward symbolic ordinances. That church exists to-day. 



574 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

He can never show when, how, for what reasons, they were 
expelled or excluded. We, however, will next, 

1. Show that infants were in it. 

2. That they were baptized in infancy. 

3. That their membership was positively recognized by the 
Apostolic Church, though all this is a work of supererogation, 
not demanded. — \^Time out 



Infant Baptism. 575 



DR. GRAVES' FIRST REPLY. 

Mr. President: — I stand here to deny the affirmation that 
infant baptism is authorized hy the Word of God. 

It was the desire of the Baptists of this place to confine the 
discussion to its proper limits. The command of Christ, since 
the commission, as Elder Ditzler himself admits, "is the only 
authority we have to baptize anybody." But Elder Ditzler's 
committee refused, and thus impliedly admitted that they do 
not believe that the commission is the only law of Christian 
baptism. Then the committee endeavored to confine it to 
the New Testament, at least to its precepts and examples, to 
the teachings and practice of the apostles, but Elder Ditzler's 
committee, at his instance, I suppose, declined, and said they 
wanted the benefit of the whole Bible, thus refusing to admit 
that the iN'ew Testament is the sole rule of faith and practice to 
the Christian. The question before us in its present verbiage, 
was then agreed upon, involving the practice of the M. E. 
Society North and South. 

Infant Baptism^ as practiced by the M. E. Churchy is authorized 
by the Word of God. 

Now, what do we understand by the proposition ? 

I understand it to imply. 1. The character of the infant, 
i. e., whether the child of professing parents or not. 2. The 
purposes for which the rite is administered. 

1. The Methodist Society administers the rite indiscrimi- 
nately. This is characteristic of the Methodists, and in this 
Presbyterians oppose their practice as unscriptural. 

2. The rite is not confined to children of eight days, but of 
any age, so long as they are considered not accountable. The 
Discipline does not limit the age — only little children — not 
infants merely; and I think this is their general practice 
in the South. 

3. That the rite is administered to the children of all, for 



576 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the purpose ol washing away the guilt of original sin, which, 
if not thus washed away by baptism, the child cannot be saved. 

4. The rite is administered to infants as a means of grace, 
by the assistance of which God works invisibly in the child, 
creating within it spiritual life, and " strengthening and con- 
firming its faith in God." 

5. Baptism is the rite by which, in every case, infants, as 
well as adults, are received into the church, and made mem- 
bers of the same, and not as Presbyterians teach, because they 
are born into the church, and have, therefore, a right to its 
ordinances. 

I feel warranted in saying that Elder Ditzler, and his friends 
here, do not believe that infant baptism, for such purposes, or 
for any purpose, was ever commanded by Christ. They were 
pressed to maintain this, and positively refused. Why ? It 
was a frank admission that thev do not believe it. ]N"either 
do they believe that the rite can be sustained by the ]N'ew 
Testament alone for any purpose. They were pressed to 
affirm it, but refused. Why? Only one reason. They know it 
contains no authority for it whatever. ISTor do they believe that 
there is precept or example in the 'New Testament, or Word 
of God to support it, because this single issue was pressed 
upon them to maintain, and they refused. And there is but 
one conceivable ground for the refusal, i. e., they were satis- 
fied that neither Testament aflbrds precept or example for infant 
baptism for any purpose, whether it be to regenerate them, or 
to admit them into the church without regeneration. I claim, 
then, and have the right to claim, that Dr. Ditzler and his 
friends, by refusing to affirm the above proposition, in this 
debate, have virtually admitted : 

1. That Christ never commanded infants to be baptized for 
any purpose. 

2. That the IN'ew Testament does not furnish satisfactory 
authority for the rite. 

8. That there is neither an express precept for, nor clear 
example of, infant baptism in God's Word. 

These propositions may be considered eliminated from this 



Infant Baptism. 



577 



discussion. You need not expect to hear my opponent main- 
tain them, and, mark my prophecy, you will not. 

The question is, has already been impliedly, cut down to 
this, do the Old Testament — the teachings of Moses or the 
prophets afford some analogy or ground to infer that infant 
baptism, as practiced by the M. E. Church, is authorized? 

And you have already noticed this. Eld. Ditzler has not, 
in the hour that he has spoken, claimed either a command or 
an example of infant baptism in the Old Testament, and he v\'ill 
not in this discussion, because it was also impliedly, admit- 
ted by his committee as instructed by himself, that the Old 
Testament affords neither command nor example for infant 
baptism, when they admitted that the Bible does not furnish 
them, by relusing to maintain such a proposition ; for " the 
whole includes the sum of all its parts." 

If precepts or examples can be found in no part of the 
Bible, thev cannot be found in the Old Testament. But he 
stands here to find authority^ and he knows, what every man 
in this audience knows or should know, that authority in any 
government human or Divine, does not exist, and cannot be 
asserted or claimed without the express command or enactment of 
the law-making power ^ in, the Divine Head of the church. ]^ow 
just one verse — just one word. 

For any officer of this State or of these United States to 
maintain that he is authorized to perform any official or legal act, 
he must be able to produce a legal warrant and that in express 
terms, from the Courts or the acts of the Legislature. His 
right to perform the office he must derive from express enact- 
ments of the law-making power, and he must he able to produce 
those enactments. He has no right to infer, from what may have 
existed in this, or any other country that a specific thing should 
be done and that he has a right to do it, in the name of the 
government — he must be able to show a specific law for it, ''in 
white and black," and his own legal authority to execute that 
law. 

Now, right here, at the outstart, do you bear me witness that 

in the most respectful terms. I do as it is my right, demand of 

Eld. Ditzler one precept for Infant baptism, in either Testament. 
36 



578 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Here is God's word before us. If it authorizes Infant Bap- 
tism it contains somewhere an express precept for it, clear as 
the law for baptizing adults. Pedobaptists have been search- 
ing the Bible from the day the innovation was brought into 
practice of the professed church, and if there is a command 
or clear example, it must have been found. Eld. Ditzler has 
given thirty years to the diligent search for the law or exam- 
ple in God's word that authorizes it, and if it is in the Book, 
he certainly knows where it is, and can produce it in one min- 
ute as well as in one year. 

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen, I appeal to you, if 
there is the least need of spending three days in settling this 
question ? Can it not be done in one short speech as well as 
in one year, if indeed it is going to be settled by the authority 
of God's word — that is by its clear and undoubted precept — 
specific law, or the clear unquestionable practice of the Apos- 
tles and Apostolic churches as recorded in the IS'ew Testament? 
If such a precept or such examples are on record. Eld. Ditzler is 
informed of the fact ; he knows where they are and he can 
produce them all in five minutes, and the question is settled. 
Ought he not to do so ? Does not this occasion and your pres- 
ence demand it at his hands ? I am here to consider and 
receive such a law or such examples — -just one will convince 
me, and I will, here, in your presence, renounce my Baptist 
principles. But, if Eld. Ditzler will not do so, if he will only 
continue as he has started out, to offer you only a groundless, 
and, therefore, imaginary analogy, drawn from the identity of 
the Jews, whether as the family of Abraham, or organized as 
a nation — with the visible church and kingdom of Christ — 
then you must see, feel and know that he has neither precept for, 
nor example of, and consequently no authority for Infant Bap- 
tism in the word of God. I shall claim, as I have a right to 
claim, that his very failure to produce express law, or 
clear examples of Infant Baptism by the churches the apostles 
planted — as a public confession on his part that he has no law 
or examples — nothing better than an inference, he will 
spend, in spite of all I can do, three days in preparing the 
ground, from the imaginary identity of the Jewish nation with 



Infant Baptism. 579 

the church of Christ. It would to him, amount to nothing 
should I grant the identity — for there was no Infant Baptism 
in the Old Testament, and nothing like it — how, then, could 
he get it into the New ? 

Now of the' truth of all I have said. Eld. Ditzler is fully 
aware. In the second head of his opening speech in the 
Wilkes Debate p. 15, he asserts that "the commission as found 
in Matt, is the only authority we have to baptize anybody." 

THIS IS RECORDED IN THE NeW TESTAMENT. This is the exprCSS 

command of Christ. I appeal then and here to this audience., 
were those not fair propositions that the Baptist Committee of 
this place submitted, when they proposed to settle this ques- 
tion by the New Testament? by the command of Christ? 

But how has Eld. Ditzler met this question this morning ? 
Has he planted himself upon this law to vindicate an authority 
in it, or render it to baptize infants in order to wash away the 
guilt of original sin or secure their spiritual quickening by the 
Holy Spirit and the strengthening and confirmation of their in- 
fant faith in Christ? Has he even opened the New Testament 
to read a precept for, or an example of, Infant Baptism? 
No, strangelj^ no !' but he has gone back four thousand years 
into the shadowy past, to explore " the weak and beggarly 
elements" of superseded dispensations, for the origin and 
model of a Christian church, when the New Testament alone 
is its record and its rule. I wish to pronounce and record a 
decided protest against such a course. It is misteaching, and 
a gross infliction upon the patience of this audience. 

We might with as much reason, spend three days exploring 
the deserted borders of Moab and Edom, or the relics of the 
long-buried cities of Herculaneum and Pompeii, or the garden 
of Eden, or the plains of Chaldea, or the tents of Israel — four 
thousand years before the authority to baptize anybody was 
given ; according to Eld. Ditzler's own declaration, as it stands 
"graven with an iron pen aiid lead, in the rock forever." 

Now I am willing to rest this whole question, and include 
in it the 5th., upon a fair construction of that proposition, the 
meaning of which any common reader, any ordinarily intelli- 
gent child of fourteen, can determine as readily as any jurist 



580 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of the land. But Eld. Ditzler is not willing to decide this 
question by the letter and spirit of that law, but maintains that 
we must infer the action iutendedy and the subjects embraced 
in it by the Jewish education- of the apostles ^ and the relation that, 
not infants in a^^e, but children had stood to the Jewish nation 
or commonwealth, which he calls the churchy in the past and 
abolished dispensations, and hence this long journey of four 
thousand years ! 

Did the Savior encourao;e the Scribes and Pharisees and 
Sadducees to interpret his teachings by their previously con- 
ceived opinion Sy Jewish education, prejudice, shades of reUgious, 
thought, etc.? did he encourage this method of interpretation 

in ]!^icoderaus ? 

Where does it appear from the records of the Old Testa- 
ment, that when Jehovah appointed any branch of ritual wor- 
ship, he left either the subject of it, or the mode of administration, 
to be inferredhj the people, from the relation in which they stood 
to Himself, or from general moral precepts, or from any 
branch of his moral worship, or yet from any well known 
positive rite ? This principle or rule, laid down by Elder 
Ditzler, is a pernicious one, and invented only to open the 
way for the introduction of the traditions of men, among 
the commands of Christ, and thereby make them of none 
effect. 

I therefore affirm with all the earnestness of my nature and 
convictions of my soul, that the covenants made with Abra- 
ham, Isaac and Jacob, or the children of Israel, have no more 
to do with the interpreting of the commission, or with the infer- 
ential support of infant baptism, than the covenant made with 
IToah concerning the deluge has. The most renowned 
scholars among the advocates of infant baptism have been 
frank enough to admit it. 

I could rightly urge it as a point of order that the Elder's 
entire speech was out of order. What would it all amount to, 
suppose the Elder could prove what thousands of more able 
men before him have tried and failed to do, that there was a 
church in the garden, in the Ark, or in the "tents of Abra- 
ham, Isaac and Jacob," and in the wilderness, and that male 



Infant Baptism. 581 

infants of the members of that church, were Jews born into 
it, and were therefore circumcised at eight days ? I^ow would 
that prove that infants of Gentiles, of allyersons^ members or 
not, of saints and ivjidels, should have water sprinkled upon 
them at any age, eight days or eighty years, in order to secure 
their salvation? 

Was that the purpose for which circumcision was adminis- 
tered to Jew boys? for it must have been, for the analogy to 
hold good. What then became of all those who died before 
they were eight days old? for it would have been in violation 
of the law to have circumcised before the babe was eight days 
old. And worse than all, what became of all the uncircum- 
cised female infants, and adults also? Were thei/ all damned? 
There is something right here fatal to his whole theory, even 
if he can show a law for baptizing female infants in the New 
Testament. This at least he must do, for they were not cir- 
cumcised under the Old Testament dispensation. 

Eld. Ditzler is laboring to prove it by analogy/ 1 Analogy ! 
Has he exhausted his years on lexicons^ and failed to read 
Butler? Don't he know that analogy never proved anything? 
The utmost it can do, is to establish a probability, an iiiference^ 
But these will do my learned friend no good whatever. But 
since this argument from the analogy between a pretended 
church under the Old Dispensation and the church of Christ 
under the ]^ew, and the warrant supposed to be found in the 
Covenant of Circum^cision (which is claimed to be the Covenant 
of Grace) has^ among protestants become the main pillar and 
ground of Infant Baptism, I the more readily consent to fol- 
low Eld. Ditzler w^ith the best light my intellect and reason, 
assisted by my understanding of God's word, through the dim 
shadows of the forty centuries of the past, before emerging 
into the clear light of the Gospel Dispensation to which alone 
Christian Baptism belongs. 

My following will class under three heads: 

I — Replication. 
II — Explication. 
Ill — Refutation. 

My first and main object will be to follow and reply to lih 



582 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

arguments^ which are not his only, but R. Watson's, and indeed 
those of all modern Pedobaptists known to me. What he 
may not advance in his speeches I mav refer to in his book. 

2. I shall explain as best I may the Scriptures he may em- 
ploy upon this occasion, to support this theory. 

3. Andj as time may permit, though it does not devolve up- 
on me, I shall endeavor to refute the entire theory of Infant 
Baptism as held by modern Pedobaptists, by demonstrating 
that the practice of Infant Baptism is not only contrary to the 
precept, but its whole purpose and design and effects are con- 
trary to the genius, as they are subversive of the very funda- 
mental principles of the Gospel of man's salvation, pernicious 
to the church and to the world, and endangering the salvation 
of the subject. I propose to couch my refutation in the form 
of short logical arguments, and to give my opponent ample 
time to attend to them, I will bring forward one or more 
at the close of each speech. 

THE CHURCH. 

The first objection, and it is a serious one, I lay to his 
course in his first speech is, he does not define his terms — even 
those upon which he hinges his whole argument. And this 
is in violation of the rules of the debate, and the first princi- 
ples that govern all logical reasoning. He has used the term 
Chiireh, and an all-important word it is, for we may discuss 
here till the Master comes, and unless we define this one word, 
we shall have no clear conception of its meaning, we can 
come to no conclusion. Eld. Ditzler has been talking to you 
for a whole hour about a Christian Church, and he has left you 
in pitchy darkness, as to what a Christian Church is! There 
is not a man in this congregation, however richly endowed 
with intellect or blessed with culture, who can rise in his 
place and state what Eld. Ditzler himself regards as a Chris- 
tian Church, from the definition he gives, for this simple 
reason the Elder has not given a definition; his statements do 
not amount to a definition. If he has given its kind, he has 
not given what logicians term its diferentia, and this strikes 
me with astonishment, because I have understood that the 
Elder was a logician^ as well as a linguist. He may, however, 



Infant Baptism. 583 

have sacrificed his logic to a single Syriac verb. I meau what 
I say and will illustrate my meaning. 

If I am called upon to define a horse and say, "a horse is an 
animal^'^ have I defined it? There are ten thousand animals that 
are not horses. A man is an animal but not a horse. If I further 
add, a horse is a four-footed animal, have I defined it so that you 
could tell it from an ox or an elephant ? That's the trouble 
with his definitions ; you cannot tell his church from a nation 
or a mo6, from a Masonic lodge or a Temperance Society. 

To say that the church of Christ, for that is the body we 
have under discussion — not an ecclesia of Greece — is a 
*'crowd," is not defining it. To say it is '^a mob" or "a con- 
gregation," is not defining it. To say it is a body of persons 
called out, or "called together," is not defining it ; or even a 
body of Christians gathered into one place, or into an organized 
body, is not defining it. Such a body might possibly be a 
Masonic Lodge, or a Temperance Society, for there have been 
such bodies, every member a professed Christian. But neither 
a congregation of Christians, nor of angels, would be a church 
of Christ. The former, however, would make excellent mate- 
rial to constitute into a christian church. Who does not 
know that Christian baptism, and a scriptural church polity, 
constitute the essential diferentia of a Christian church, and 
has Eld. D. so much as mentioned them ? He has talked 
learnedly, some may think — I should say quite unlearnedly — 
about Syriac and Chaldee, and has given you two words in 
Hebrew, the one translated a congregation, and the other an 
assembly; but he has failed to find one which the 70 Jews 
translated once by ecclesia, ^ or that our English translators 
translate church. Why does he keep 4000 years away from 
the Greek term the Holy Spirit selected by which to indicate 
the church of Christ throughout the New Testament ? It is 
the usus loquendi of the term by the Greeks themselves, and 
the modified use of the term throughout the New Testament, 
that we have to do with. 

I will give Eld. D. the credit of giving elsewhere one of 
the essential diferentia of the Christian ecclesia, and I thank 
him for it. He says in his Debate with Wilkes, p. 21 . 

^ 'There is no such thhag as a person being a member of the church of 



584 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

God, in the true sense of that word, unless he is a child of God, although 
we may receive him and administer unto him fleshly ordmances [as cir- 
cumcision or baptism]^ he is not a member of the church of God, [visible 
or invisible], unless he has been regenerated unto God ; for it requires 
regeneration to bring a sinner into the family of God, Then it requires 
a man to be in Christ Jesus, to be a member of the church of God ; it 
requires that he should be justified by Faith, in the Lord Jesus Chi'ist." 

This is truCy but we may see that it is death by the sword 
to his whole system, for it shuts the door of the church, visible 
and invisible, in all ages, against infants, for they are not born 
regenerate, '^o morally unconscious infant ever exercised 
faith in Christ, and therefore, infants never, in any age, were 
members of the church of God, or the family of God, or the 
bouseliold, flock or fold of God, or the "true Israel," or of 
the "true circumcision,'^ or of the "body of Christ," or to 
those God calls "my Deople." Is not this question again settled 
by his own admission ? There is no avoiding the conclusion, 
even if he should find a score of Christian churches in the Old 
Testament. It is evident, and no one, not my opponent, 
will affirm, that any one should be baptized who is not qual- 
ified for church membership. But infants are not, saj's Mr. 
Ditzler. Therefore, &c. There is a place in the windings of the 
Mammoth Cave, which they call the Bottomless Pit, into which 
if a persoa falls, he is forever lost to the light of day. Eld. T>. 
has unfortunately to his friends, stumbled into it, over \h\9 
admission, and he never more will recover. Mark if he does. 
This is a sufficient answer to his whole hour^s speech, and to 
all he can make during the three days allowed tothe discussion 
of this proposition. 

But what are the essential characteristics of a church of 
Christ, visible, for with no other body, if there be one, have 
we anvthinfi^ to do. 

The Discipline of his own church, says: 

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which 
the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered^ 
according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of nececessity are 
requisite to the same. — Dis. p. 17. 

This is quite a near approach to a proper definition. Mark 

two features of it: 

lo It must be " a congregation of faithful men^^ i. e.^ belie v- 



Infant Baptism. 585 

ing men, jastified by faith in Christ, regenerate in heart, not 
a mixed body, partly believers and partly un-or non-believers, 
partly justified and partly unjustified, a part regenerate and 
a part ''the children of wrath even as others." It is evident 
to all that there was never such a congregation in the days of 
Abel or Abraham, of Moses or the prophets, never under the 
old Jewish dispensation, never until Christ called together such 
a body. It is evident that the M. E. organization, T^orth or 
South, is not such a body, nor any society that admits infants 
and the professedly unregenerate to membership. This defini- 
tion then, destroys the specious argument he is now making. 

2. The second feature, " in which the pure word of God is 
preached, and the sacraments" — baptism and the Lord's Sup- 
per — "are duly administered according to Christ's ordinance," 
i. e., command or appointment. When and where in the Old 
Testament did Christ ordain Baptism and the Lord's Supper? 
When and where from the daj^s of Abel to the -days of Christ's 
incarnation, were Baptism and the Lord's Supper duly admin- 
istered in any congregation of faithful men ? Why these three 
days of argumentation to prove that there was such a church 
of Christ in the Old Testament, in which there were unregen- 
erate, unjustified infants, which he says never were, are not, 
and can never be members ? He must either give up his 
Discipline or his theory. They are utterly irreconcilable. 
Which will he do? Which will Methodists do, give up their 
Discipline, or Eld. Ditzler as a champion of it? 

But what is a church of Christ? 

The Episcopal prayer-book gives us the same definition 
as the above. Wesley copied it into the Discipline. 
The Presbyterian Confession of Faith says: 

II. The visible Church, which is also catholic, or universal under the 
gospel, (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of 
all those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together 
with their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the 
house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of 
salvation. — Con. Faith, ch. xxv, see. 2. 

This definition does not call for an organization, it does 
not require baptism; nor does it require that the members of 
it should be " faithful men," but provides that the larger num- 



586 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ber may be unregenerate, for it includes all the children, not 
infants in years merely, but all the children of jprofessing 'parents, 
though they may be three score and ten ! 

I cannot accept this definition — Elder Ditzler cannot. 

To ascertain the meaning of " Church of Christ" we must 
refer to two sources of information, since it is a Greek word 
which Christ used to designate his church , we must first go to 
the Greeks for their understanding of it; for the selecting 
Spirit chose a word that would convey a general idea to the 
Greek-speaking millions, who would read the sacred Scriptures. 
(2) We must then find its usus loquendi in the New Testament 
to learn if Christ in any respect modified its literal meaning 
when applied to an organized body of his followers, and if so, 
in what respect. 

The noun ecclesia is compounded of the verb kaleo, to call, 
the preposition ex. out of, and it must therefore designate a 
body of persons called out of a multitude. 

The Greeks were governed by three judicial bodies. The 
Senate of 500, the Ecclesia or Public Assembly and the Df- 
kastries — -Jury Courts. 

The Greek Ecclesia was a lawful assembly of qualified citi- 
zens, elected out of the multitude of people, for the transac- 
tion of public affairs. The members of it had to possess cer- 
tain qualifications. When elected their names were enrolled 
or registered, and they were called together at stated times, 
by a qualified officer, were presided over, and their acts duly 
recorded by a clerk or scribe. [See Smith's His. of Greece 
p. 98.] 

Archbishop Trench says : 

"We have ekklesia in three distmct stages of meanmg — heathen, the 
Jewish and the Christian. In respect to the first, ekklesia^ as all know, 
was the lawful assembly in a free Greek city of all those possessed of the 
rights of citizenship for the transaction of public affairs. That they were 
summoned is expressed in the latter part of the word. That they were sum- 
moned out of the whole population, a select portion of it, including neither 
the populace, nor yet strangers, nor those who had forfeited their civic 
rights, this is expressed in the first. Both the calling and the calling out 
are moments to be remembered, when the word is assumed into a higher 
Christian sense, for in them the chief part of its peculiar adaptation to its 
auguster uses lies." 



Infant Baptism. • 587 

We see that being a legal legislative assembly, duly reg- 
istered as such, it was an Ecclesia at all times, whether in ses- 
sion or adjourned, as is the House of Commons of England, 
or the House of Representatives of the United States, bodies 
to which the Grecian Ecclesia was closely analogous — it was 
a permanent body. 

An ordinary, or extraordinary assemblage of a multitude 
could no more be called an Ecclesia in Greece, than it could 
be the House of Commons in England. iitTor could a lawless 
"mob " be called an Ecclesia any more properly than it could 
be called the House of Representatives in this country. 

The members of the Ecclesia voted either by a show of 
hands, or by ballot. 

Says the Editor of ISTorth American Cyclopedia, p. 736 : 

"Besides the legislative powers of the Assembly, Ecclesia, it could 
make inquisition into the conduct of Magistrates, and in turbulent and 
excited times, exercised a power resembling that of impeachment, as in 
the cases of Demosthenes and Phocion." 

It will be seen that all matters that affected, the public in- 
terest and the welfare of the people, civil or religious, came 
under its cognizance. 

The meetings of the Ecclesia were at first held in the Agora, 
but afterwards in the great theatre of Dionyseus, and in the 
theatre at Munychia — as the regular sessions of our legisla- 
tures are held in the capitol buildings of our States. 

By reference to Act xix., we see that Luke says that upon 
the uproar in the city, the " Ecclesia gathered," not a lawless 
mob, for he distinguishes it from the demos — populace— and 
from ochlos—an irregular crowd. It will be noticed that this 
Ecclesia gathered with one accord into the theatre, the appointed 
and legal gathering place of this body. Had it been a lawless 
mob, it would have had no right, nor would it have been per- 
mitted to assemble in the theatre, nor would it have thought of 
such a gathering place. The multitude followed the Ecclesia into 
the theatre, and, by preferring, some, one charge, and some, an- 
other, confused the Ecclesia, and it could ascertain nothing 
definite to act upon. 

Kow, the Ecclesia of Christ is a body of persons elected 



588 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

aud called out from the world at large, separated and distin- 
guished froru it by regeneration of heart. Christ says of the 
members of it : " Ye are not of this world, but I have chosen 
you out of the world.'' John xv. 19. 

The names of the members of the Christian Ecclesia, are 
duly registered, not only upon the records of the body itself, 
below, but " written in heaven." 

Every member must be introduced formally into the Eccle- 
sia, upon a profession of personal faith in the Trinity, and the 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity, which profession is 
made in the act of immersion in water. See Commission 
Matt, xxviii ; Johniii. 5; also, Heb. iv. 14 ; and 1. Cor. xii. 13. 
For in one spirit — "in the spirit of childlikeness of obedience 
and love, " we are all immersed into one body" — which is said 
by the apostle in the same chapter, to be a church — " and 
have all been made to drink into one spirit," we have imbibed 
into our very souls the spirit of love and obedience. By this 
act of immersion we are introduced into, and finally qualified, 
to be active members of the Ecclesia of Christ. This is the 
first modification of the Grecian Ecclesia — it is a body of 
regenerated and properly baptized persons. The Church of 
Christ is not a legislative, but only an executive body. It can 
make, repsal, or change no laws, but its duty is to execute 
those already enacted by its only head and lawgiver, Jesus 
Christ. Like the Grecian Ecclesia, all the members are upon an 
equality — all are brethren. There are no authoritative rulers. 
All the ministers are the equals of each other, and rule as 
presiding officers, according to the law of Christ. " Call no 
man master." Therefore, we define a Christian Ecclesia — 
Church — to be a body of believers in Christ, who have been 
Scripturally immersed upon a profession of their previous re- 
generation, and faith in Christ, associated by covenant in the 
faith and fellowship of the gospel, observing the ordinances of 
Christ; governed only by this law, and exercising the 
gifts, rights and privileges invested in them by his Word. 
Such a body is alone entitled to be regarded or called 
a Christian church. All can see there can be do infants 
in this church, any more than in Elder Ditzler's church of 



Infant Baptism. 589 

r 

regenerated persons, and every man and woman, and child, in 
this audience, who has read the Old Testament, knows that 
there never was such a visible organized body as this from the 
days of Abel, to the days of John the Baptist. 

Now, Mr. President, I protest against the illogical and un- 
scholarly coarse of Elder Ditzler in continually calling some- 
thing "the church of God," before he has either defined what 
he means by the term, or proved that one existed in the gar- 
den, ark, or family of Abraham. He is constantly committing 
the fallacy st3^1ed by logicians, ^e^^'i(^o^rmc^p^^, a begging of the 
question — taking the very thing for granted that he is first 
required to prove. He has assumed that there has been a church 
from the annunciation of the promised seed in the garden 
until this day, essentially the same under all dispensations, 
but he has not ofifered one word or syllable of proof, nor 
pretended to. 

I will state his theory as I understand it. 

1. That the Church of God "existed thousands of years be 
fore circumcision or any carnal ordinance^^ — the same in its de- 
signs and principles, and in unbroken continuity, now as it is 
to-day. See his Debate with Wilkes, p. 17. 

2. That infants, all infants, enjoyed membership in this 
Church. 

3. The first ordinance ever introduced was administered to 
infants. 

4. That the Jewish nation was the true Church of Christ, 
and infants were members of it and enjoyed all its privileges 
and immunities and that the Church was not changed under 
the new dispensation. Now his language seems to be "there- 
fore" — his language should be — it is probable^ in the absence 
of any law to the contrary — that infants should be continued 
in the church to-day, but his conclusions are, infants are mem- 
bers of the Christian Church now — and that it devolves upon 
me to show that the Jewish Church was destroyed — and its 
infant membership abrogated by God's own specific and direct 
command ! 

From four assumptions, mere inferences^ which he has not 



590 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

proved and cannot prove, he draws an absolute and positive 
conclusion ! Is this the science of logical accuracy ? 

I answer it all in a general way with a sentence. From ten 
thousand inferences, you can infer nothing — not even an infer- 
ence. From the best and nicest analogies you can only infer a 
probability and there is no place for inference or probabilities 
in this discussion, but for jproofs. The question concerns a 
positive institution, and we must produce positive law — a thus 
saith the Lord — therefore let the opponents of Infant Baptism 
show where this church is dstroyed. 

To the last demand, I reply, the gentleman need not call 
upon me to put infants out of the E'ew Testament church, 
because he has himself declared they were never in it. 
Remember his declaration : "There is no such thing as a per- 
son being a member of the church of God, in the true sense 
of that word, unless he is a child of God." . . "Unless regen- 
erated unto God." . . "Justified by faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ." But for the sake of this audience, and those who 
may read this discussion, I propose to refute the theory, by 
exploding the inferences specifically, and showing you that 
the practice of Infant Baptism, as observed in the M. E. 
Church, contravenes the very getiius and subverts the very 
system of Christianity. 

1. That "the church of God existed one thousand years 
before any carnal ordinances." The first carnal ordinance 
that we have any account of being observed, was the sacrifice 
of Abel, offered by faith, and sacrificial offerings for sin 
accepted of God, must have been appointed by God. All 
theologians agree in this. See A. Clarke, in loco. But was 
this appointed for, or administered to, an infant ? Let any 
one answer. But 

"2. The church was in the Garden of Eden, and the model and 
mother of all future ones ! If so, it consisted of two sinful 
and unregenerate persons, under the curse of God. Would 
these constitute "a congregation of faithful men ?" Were the 
ordinances that Christ commanded. Baptism and the Lord's 
Supper, duly administered ? But if it was the first and model 
church, there were no infants in it ! So the staple to which 



Infant Baptism. 591 

mj opponent's chain is attached, is crushed and falls. No 
church nor infant rite in the first dispensation. 

3. Was there a church in the second dispensation. After 
our first parents were driven from the garden, God instituted 
a worship, by sacrifices, and in connection with these the 
promise of salvation through faith in Christ, as the coming 
Kedeemer, must have been proclaimed to Adam and his 
family, for we read that "through faith Abel made a more 
acceptable sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness 
that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts ; and by it 
he being dead, yet speaketh." Heb. xi, 4. Now because he 
was righteous, must we conclude that he was in the church 
of God ? If so, so far as the inspired record goes, and we 
have no right to go beyond it, he was the only living being at this 
time, who was justified by faith, for, if Adam or Eve had been 
believers, being such prominent characters, would not inspi- 
ration have mentioned the fact? Then it follows when Cain 
slew Abel, he prevailed against the Church of God, and abol- 
ished it, and by one fell stroke blotted it out of existence ! 
That club was the fatal instrument of death, not only to Abel, 
but to the very foundation upon which the whole system of 
Infant Baptism rests. 

Eld. Ditzler maintains that God had a church in Eden, that 
Abel was a worshipper in it, and that from the day it was set 
up, it has never ceased to have existence, and has been the 
same under every dispensation, or we must admit that God 
changes ! What will he now do ? Give up his false theory — 
the ghost of which is crying from the ground — -or will he give 
up his God? He is bound as a Christian man to give up one 
or the other. I assure you if I could be convinced that the 
church of Christ had ever been prevailed against b}^ either its 
corruption or destruction, I would be compelled to surrender 
my Bible with my faith. But in Abel's church there were 
no infants, which fact is fatal to the theory of Pedobaptism. 
When and where was it set up again ? 

But we are told by the advocates of Infant Baptism that the 
church was in the Ark with Noah, and the theory of my oppo- 
nent forces him upon this position, he claims a continuous 



592 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

cliLirch from the garden, he even says that the cliurch ui God 
existed 1000 years before any fleshly or carnal rite —and 
i^oah's, and Abel's sacrifice were carnal ordinances, and there- 
fore, his theory carries the church beyond time into eternity it- 
self ! ! 

But grant that the church, the first and model church was 
in the Ark. Let us open the doors and look in upon it and 
see of whom it was composed. If .any one had saving faith, 
it was !N"oah. The record mentions his faith, but the faith of 
no other one. Then if his family constituted the model 
church, only one member out of eight was a believer, but alas, 
for Pedobaptism, there was not an infant in it! And this my 
friend claims is the model of the church of which he is a 
member and stands here to advocate ! ! 

Thus you have seen all the evidence there is of a church 
for the first 1656 years — but if church, one thing is certain, 
there ivere no injants in it for 1656 years, which is pecu- 
liarly fatal to his theory. Trace it on down for 2106 years 
to Abraham's day and the Covenant of Circumcision, and still 
find no trace of an infant ! ! If an infant was ever brousrht 
into it, it must have been by some new covenent and new law 
which Eld. Ditzler, with all his ingenuity and learning can 
never find, nor invent without detection. Why need I reply 
longer to him or expose the groundlessness of his sys- 
tem ? Why may I not claim the question as settled in my 
favor, and set down and permit him to consume the two re- 
maining days in the vain endeavor to find a sound piece of 
timber in the wreck and ruiii of his demolished svstem ? 
Have I not broken the very staple of it, and crushed into dust 
every link of his chain for nearlv 2000 vears ? It is known 
to every man that no chain, however massive, is stronger than 
its weakest link, break but one, 

" Tenth or tenth thousand, breaks the chain !" 

But as this discussion is designed alike for the instruction 
of those who read it as well as those who hear, I will follow 
him on down into the wilderness of Sin and Sinai. 

What do you conclude with reference to three of the infer- 
rences upon which he builds his theory ? 



Infant Baptism. 593 

Take the definition of a church given in the Discipline my 
opponent is sworn " to mind not mend," if you will not take 
mine, and decide if there was a visible organization of "faith- 
ful men" and regenerate infants in those ages. 

There were no infants in his Edenic Church. 

There were no infants in Abel's Church. 

There were no infants and only one righteous man in the 
Ark or on the earth when we enter upon the third Dispensa- 
tion ! 

Refutation. 

I will first construct a logical argument in Elder Ditzler's 
own language in refutation of his own theory, and his own 
church, which he can never answer, but must respect, if he has 
any respect for his own statements. 

Arg. 1^0. 1. 

1. There is no such thing as a person — this means any one, young or old 
if it means anything — being a m.ember of the church of God in the true 
sense of the word — and this means invisible as well as visible, unless he 
has been regenerated unto God. * * " For it requires regeneration to 
bring a sinner into the family of God." * * It requires a man to be in 
Christ Jesus, to be a member of the church of God ; it requires that he 
should be justified by faith in the Lord Jesus Christ." — J. Ditzler, in Debate 
with Wilkes, p. 21. 

2. But the infants of the Jews, as well as of Christians, in every age are 
unregenerated and unjustified, and the ''children of wrath even as 
others." 

3. Therefore they never were and never can be, members of the chm'ch 
of Christ. 

Arg. ISTo. II. 

1. Those organizations that admit unregenerate (Children or adults as 
members, cannot be regarded as churches of Christ in any true sense of 
the word. 

2. But aU Pedobaptist organizations do admit unregenerate children to 
membership. 

3. Therefore Pedobaptist organizations cannot be regarded as churches 
of Christ. — \_Time out. 

37 



594 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — The points my worthy opponent 
sought to make, will naturally fall in before me in the course 
laid out, and his objections will all be met in course. Hence 
we pursue our chain of argument begun in our Saturday's 
address. 

We saw the church one. It was developed out of the 
promise or covenant of redemption In Christ. Christ was its 
"founder and its consummator" — Hebrews xii. 1,2, as ex- 
pounded in our first address. Christ " lead his people all the 
days of old." They were "one with him" — his brethren. 
We saw that Christ was incarnated, and solidified, " gathered 
together" "the lost sheep — straying, scattered ones — of the 
house of Israel." So all prophecy had declared he would do. 
They formed a multitude before his crucifixion. Israelites, 
indeed, in whom no guile existed all along through the 
darkest and most trying times of Israel's de|)ression. 

We saw that the church's existence and connection or identity 
never did consist of its ordinances or ritualistic services in 
any age of the world. This is very important. What old 
dreamy writers, who dote over the dreams of mystics, write on 
such a subject, interests me but little. God's church never 
did depend on its ritual. That changed repeatedly by God's 
legislation, under the same dispensations, in different dispen- 
sations, were suspended, enlarged, abridged, broken often as 
to their order and administrator, as the Bible abundantly 
shows. But these things never affected the perpetuity — the 
oneness of God's people or church. These facts will come up 
under another proposition, and need not be elaborated here. 
The truth is, Jesus Christ is the unity of his people. As to 
the olive tree, we say it is the church — the remnant preserved, 
when Christ came, to whom Gentile converts were added, 
even as to them the 3000 on Pentecost converted from among 



Mode of Baptism. 595 

scoffers and those who had rejected, crucified him, were added, 
and others thereafter. This fact is further seen in GaL iv. 31 : 

**21. Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law ? 

''22. For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bond- 
maid, the other by a free woman. 

"23. But he who was of the bondwoman was born after the flesh ; but he 
of the free woman was by promise. 

"24. Which things are an allegory ; for these are the two covenants ; 
the one from the mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, which is 
Agar. 

"25. For this Agar is mount Sinai in Arabia, and answereth to Jerusa- 
lem which now is, and is in bondage with her children. 

"26. But Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of 
us all. 

"For it is written. Rejoice, thou barren that bearest not; break forth 
and cry, thou that travailest not : for the desolate hath many more chil- 
dren than she which hath a husband. 

"28. Now we brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise. 

"29. But as then he that was born after the flesh persecuted him that 
was born after the Spirit, even so it is now. 

"30. jN'evertheless what saith the Scriptm'e? Cast out the bondwoman 
and her son : for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son 
of the free woman. 

"31. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of 
the free. 

Paul had just shown that " they who are of faith are blessed 

with faithful Abraham." Gal. iii. 9. Then he farther adds : 

"15. Brethren, I speak after the manner of men: Though it be hut a 
man's covenant, yet ij it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth 
thereto. 

" 16. Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith 
not, And to seeds, as of many ; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is 
Christ. 

"17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of 
God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, 
cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 

" 18. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise : but 
God gave it to Abraham by promise. 

" 19. Wherefore then serveth the law? It was added because of trans- 
gressions, tiU the seed shoifld come to whom the promise wps made ; and 
it was ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." 

Here Paul shows that the covenant at Sinai, the covenant 
represented by Hagar, which " engendereth to bondage," was 



596 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

not of promise — not of faith — and was four hundred and 

thirty years later than that made with Abraham, "the. father 

of us all." The covenant of redemption was that made with 

Abraham. It was " coTi^rmec? before of God in Christ J^ Gal. 

iii. 17. "The inheritance'^ is of promise — not of the law. All 

this was done J 

" 14. That the blessmgof Abraham might come on the Gentiles through 
Jesus Christ ; that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through 
faith." 

Hence all believers are one in Christ — of the same church. 

"29. And if ye he Christ's, then are ye Abraham.'s seed, and heirs 
according to the promise." 

Identity of the Church. 

" The law of commandments contained in ordinances (Eph. 
xi. 15) he took out of the way, nailing it to the cross." The 
law of commandments " contained in ordinances" " loas added 
because of transgressions till the Seed (Christ) should come," 
(Gal. iii. 19), being imposed till the time of reformation,'' (Heb. 
ix. 10). Christ had become surety to Abrahani for the Father 
that the promises should be fulfilled — " By so much was Jesus 
made a surety of a better testament" — (Heb. viii. 22). Hence 
this removal — taking away the ritualistic elements that never had 
encumbered the church till the Mosaic day, necessitated by 
the eflects of centuries of slavery in Egypt, those " carnal 
ordinances imposed till the time of reformation" fell with the 
rending of the veil. That system was a parenthesis. It was 
temporary. The church existed before it. It existed during 
the formation of these ceremonies — during the suspension of 
them in part and, at times, in whole — during their variations, 
irregularities whereby wars, usurpations, conquests, etc., etc., 
they were most irregularly administered in large part — during 
the days of the Daniel's or Elijah's, it existed. The law never 
was " of faith". Gal. iii. 11, 12. Yet, from Abel down, all 
God's people were saved by faith, Heb. xi. entire, Rev. iii. 28, 
31 ; iv. 1-14 entire. Hence Abraham is "the father of us all" 
(v. 16). Hence "the bondwoman," that is "the Sinaitic" 
"law of commandments contained in ordinances" that " made 
nothing perfect" (Heb. vii. 19), being only "a carnal com- 



Infant Baptism. _ 597 

mandment" (v. 16,) determined and necessitated by the 
Aaronic priesthood, ^^vii. 12). Hence the bondwoman and her 
son were '' cast out^^ " cut off," " fell away." Hence we are 
children of the free woman — being children of Abraham by 
faith. To the same effect speaks Faul, Eph. ii : 

13. "But now, in Christ Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made 
nigh by the blood of Christ. 

14. "For he is our peace, wlio hath made both one, and hath broken 
down the middle wall of partition between us. 

15. "Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of com- 
m.andments contained in ordinances ; for to make in himself of twain one 
new man, so making peace ; 

16. "And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by' the 
cross, having slain the enmity thereby .• 

17. "And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to 
them that were nigh. 

18. "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the 
Father. 

19. "Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellow 
citizens with the saints, and of the household of God ; 

20. "And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone." 

There is no "new church" organized here — just the reverse. 

This renovated condition of society is called " new" just as a 

renovated soul is a ''new creature," a renovated heart is a new 

heart, and a new spirit," so often named by the same apostle. 

The bringing in of so many Gentiles, with the great breadth 

the church assumed, gave a new era to her course. But we must 

remember that those who would make the '• new man " here 

mean, that bringing in the Gentiles implied that out of the had 
elements he was to organize a new church, not only contradict 

all fact, all Scripture and reason, but contradict the plainest 

records of the I^ew Testament ; not for eiglit years after Pentecost 

were the Gentiles brought in, as all agree , and the Christian 

Jews brought them in. See Acts x. entire, xiii. entire and xv. 

entire where the Gentiles are first converted and laws for them 

given by the Jewish body. The fact that in all the assaults 

made upon Paul, Acts xxiii. 3, xxiv. 11-32, xxv. 8-9, xxvi. 2, 

8, it was never charged by those so anxious to prejudice his case 

that he, even the apostle of the Gentiles, sought to originate 



598 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

a new church, a new system, a new religion, is confirmatory 
of all this beyond all dispute. If a new religion, a new church 
had been taught, he could not have answered this. ]N'ot only 
so, but the apostolic church practiced circumcisi'on till near^ if 
not up to the end of that century. 

The identitif — oneness — entity of God's church is established. 
Its principles are one — its God One, its Christ one, its Truth 
one, its objects one. Not analogy — not likeness, but entity, 
we have proved. The principles of all dispensations are — 
love God with all the heart — our neighbor as ourselves. (Deut. 
vi. 4, 5; Mark xii. 28-34; Rom. xiii. 13; xiv. 17-18.) 

It is established. All admit infants were members of this 
church. 

Dr. Carson says of the Jewish Israel : " Was the church into 
which its members were horn, the same etc., 233. l^ay, he said, 

"Is the Christian church that rejected the great body of the 
Jewish nation, the same with the Jewish church etc., 233. 
"Was the church that admitted every stranger to its passover 
etc.,? "As the church of Israel was the church of God, typi- 
cal of his true church etc." 234. 

We next show that Infants were members in that church, 
and not only circumcised at eight days old, but baptized. Deut. 
xxix. 10-12, shows their "little ones" of all ages were included, 
Gen. xviii. 19, shows the "household" was included, Num. iii. 
27-28, shows those a month old and upwards are there in- 
cluded in the religious charge of the church. 

Joeli. 15-17: 

15 ^ "Blow the trumpet in Zioii, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly; 

16. "Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders^ 
gather the children, and those that suck the breasts : let the bridegroom go 
forth of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. 

17. "Let the priests^ the ministers of the Lord, weep between the porch 
and the altar, and let them say. Spare thy peoj)le, O Lord, and give not 
thine heritage to reproach, that the heathen should rule over them; where- 
fore should they say among the people. Where is their God ?" 

Here the tenderest age of infancy — "those that suck the 
breast " are recognized as members of the church. How did they 
sanctify the congregation — ekklesia — the church; Heb. ix. 13; 
Kum. xix. 13; viii. 7 tell us. [They baptized the church.] 



Infant Baptism. 599 

Infants were among the parties specially named. They had 
member shi^p. We have no need to prove that they are entitled 
to baptism — all admit membership carries with it baptism. 
Membership is what we prove— the greater including the less 
We read in Matthew xviii. 

"At the same time came the desciples unto Jesus saymg, Who is the 
greatest in the kingdom of heaven ? 

2. "And Jesus called a httle child unto him, and set him in the midst 
of them. 

3. "And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted and be- 
come as httle children, ye shaU not enter mto the kingdom of heaven. 

4. "Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the 
same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven, 

5. "And whoso shall receive one such little child in my name receiveth 
me. 

6. "But whoso shall ofiend one of these little ones which beheve in me 
it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and 
that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." 

Here it is clearly taught that "little children" are in the 
kingdom of heaven. 

1st. E".otice V. 1, "who is greatest in the kingdom of heaven? 
is the point before the audience. That was the question. 

2d. A child so young that it represented innocence— not 
old enough to be presumed as yet to be guilty of anything 
needing faith or conversion, to become innocent, is the party 
set forth. 

3d. Adults have to become converted and become as little chil- 
dren " to enter into the kingdom." 

4th. It was in answer to " who is greatest in the kingdom' 
the child is called. 

5th. We are to receive such little child in Chrisfs name, v. 5. 
To this add Matt. xix. 13-15 : 

"13 Then were there brought unto him httle children, that he should 
put his hands on them, and pray ; and the disciples rebuked them. 

14. But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come 
unto me ; for of such is the kingdom of heaven. 

15. And he laid his hands on them, and departed thence. 

Luke xviii. 15, calls them "infants (taphedia) whiqh inter- 
changes V. 16 with "little children {ta paidia). "Of such 



6oo The Great Carrollton Debate. 

[infants] is the kingdom of God. " In the light of such dec- 
larations he adds. "17. Verily I say unto you, Whosoever shall 
not receive the kingdom of God as a little child shall in no 
wise enter therein." Here again it is in connection with how 
adults are are to "enter in," who have transgressed, rejected 
Christ, that infants are held up as the standard of qualification 
for adult entrance. Amid such declarations it is declared 
''Of such IS the kingdom of heaven." They are members in it. 

This is the more pointed, if possible, when we remenaber 
that the Jews had always had their infants in church relation 
with them. We must remember these words were by a Jew 
to Jews, who talked to him before this familiarly about the king- 
dom of heaven. That they all had their infants recognized as 
in the same. 

IN'ot only so, but, as A. Campbell says, Ch. Baptism, p. 335, 

and debated with Rice : 

" The believing Jews, down to the end of the New Testament history, 
circumcised their children. Patil publicly declared^ by an overt act, that 
he hdd not commanded them to desist from circumcising their children." 

Hence this circumcision of infants in the Apostolic church, 
long years after Pentecost, answers /oi^r points. Ist. It proves 
that the old church w^as not abolished. 2d. That no new 
church was organized on radically different grounds. 3d. 
That, any way, infants were still in the church, recognized as 
such. 4th. That though this is so — that infants were constantly 
circumcised during the whole period of Apostolic history, yet 
not a case of it is named — no recorded case. This should hush 
the cry about " a recorded case of infant baptism in the New 
Testament." 5th. If it required a special command to desist 
from any practice that late in Apostohc history, (Acts xv. and 
xxi.) why not equally so as to infant membership and baptism? 

Here then we have the infants in the church. How will he 
get them out ? It will do no good to quote where Doctor this 
one or that one had said or written very silly, or foolish, 
or absurd, or contradictory things. That is not the issue. 
Is it in accordance with the Scripturesl That is the point. 

In accordance with these facts, we read Acts xvi. 15, of 
Lydia — 

"15, And when she was baptized, and her houseboldj she besought --is^ 



Infant Baptism. 6oi 

saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my 
hcHise, and abide there. And she constrained us." 

And xvi : 

''32. And they spalie unto him the word of the Lord, and to aU that 
were in his house. 

33. And he tooli them the same hour of the night, and washed their 
stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway. 

34. And when he had brought them into his house, he set meat before 
them, and rejoiced, believing in God with all his house." 

I Cor. i : 

*' 16. And I baptized also the household of Stephanas : besides, I know 
not whether I baptized any other." 

I Cor. xvi: 

"15. I beseech you, brethren, (ye know the house of Stephanas, that it 
is the flrstfruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the 
ministry of the saints.) 

I ask now : 1st. There being some eight '' household bap- 
tisms" recorded in the New Testament, is it likely they were 
ail destitute of infants? 2d. Are we not authorized by these 
cases to baptize such households ? 

It is answered, the household of Stephanas " addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints" — waiting on God's minis- 
ters', etc., hence no infants. To this we reply: 1st. They 
could have grown up in the years since their baptism to assist 
older ones in service. 2d. Such language does not at all imply 
that such as were too young for such work would be included, 
whereas from the whole history of religion, they would be ; 
see especially Num. iii. 27, 28, where infants " a month old 
and upwards" were charged with a ministry. The jailor " re- 
joiced, believing in God (jparioiki) with all his house" — the 
word panoild being an adverb describing how he rejoiced — quah- 
fying the verb, only he rejoiced — verb in the singular number. 
The old Peshito reads " Lydia and her children^' were baptized — 
'' the jailor was baptized and all his children {kulhun). 

All parties are settled in the fact that infant baptism is es- 
tablished when infant mem,ber ship, its right, is settled. This 
we have now done beyond all power of refutation. I need do 
nothing now but hurl back the onset of the opposition — foil, 
meetth(3 objections urged against it. This is all I need do, 
though other and powerful additional arguments will still 
be adduced. 



6o2 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

Dr. Graves wishes this question confined to the ]N"ew Testa- 
ment. Why not confine repentance, justification, atonement, 
Christ's divinity, to the Xew Testament as welL How can 
you understand the !N"ew without the Old? 

All he has to read about baptism administered as a means 
of grace, to quicken, etc., amounts to nothing. 1st. !N'o 
Methodist teaches or believes that. 2d. We are discussing 
whether it is taught in the Bible, not in men's creeds or es- 
says. 

He urges that if it represents nothing within, it is a lie. 
He believes that baptism not only represents things within, 
but things without. So he is met there. Circumcision repre- 
sented things within, we know, for of it prophets and apostles 
declare its inward import. Rom xi, 28, 29, He is not a Jew 
who is one outwardly ; neither is that circumcision which is out- 
ward, in the flesh; but he 25 a Jew who is one imvardly ; and 
circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirits See also. Col. ii, 
11; Rom. iv, 11. It w^as " a sign, a seal of the righteousness of 
faith.'' Yet it was administered at eight dags old, though Paul 
says it was " of the heart." 

He believes it had not the use and import to the infant of 
eight days, but served such ends when it grew to comprehend 
its use and symbolic import. So of baptism. 

He reads our discipline, the so-called Wesley Tract, to 
prove that Methodists teach that in baptism infants are deliv- 
ered from the wrath of God. He koows, or ought to know 
that we never did in any age or country so teach. To force 
a meaning on those phrases, which our article on baptism in 
the Discipline, the context, and all our standards show we 
never held, but so far from that, despise, reject them, is not 
my idea of fair debate. It little becomes those who till but 
recently taught that infants were in hell, and only abandoned 
it under the effects of our preaching to bring such charges. 
We will notice those matters more fullv in due time. 

He quotes Limborch, Bledsoe, etc., that " there is no proof 
that the apostles ever baptized an infant." They say not so. 
They say there is no ^^ express mention'' of it in the !N'ew Testa- 



Infant Baptism. 603 

meiit; that i^, there is no place in the New Testament where 
ill so many words it records that an infant was baptized. This 
amounts to nothing. 

1. It is nowhere recorded that John the Baptist ever bap- 
tized a woman, a boy, a girl- — you baptize all such. 

2. It is nowhere said or recorded that the twelve apostles 
ever baptized (1) a woman, (2) boy, (3) girl, (4) or man in all 
their ministry ! So, to be consistent you should never baptize 
any of these classes. As to Paul's record, we will examine it 
hereafter, he not being of "the twelve." 

3. It is nowhere recorded or told us in the IN'ew Testament 
that ail infant was circumcised in all the Apostolic days. Yet 
we know, and all agree, that they were circumcised daily— 
every day of the world, more or less. 

4. It is nowhere "expressly*' said or recorded, or hinted, 

that the twelve Apostles were ever baptized. 

5. i^or that the seventy were. 

6. N"or that the one hundred and twenty disciples were. 

7. Nor that John the Baptist was himself baptized. 

This will do. This crushes the popular objections in toto. 

You urge that we justify, prove infant baptism by inference. 
Well, suppose that be so. Do you not rely on '' inference ^^ for 
" immersion ? " You know you do. You baptize adults 
SOLELY ON INFERENCE. You infer from your expositions of 
Scripture that certain qualifications exist, and all by inference. 
A fact can as perfectly rest on legitimate inference as on actual^ 
express declaration. 

But he says the church was founded on circumcision. I 
have overwhelmingly showed the reverse, and until he assails 
my crushing facts, I can pass that point. What was the rem- 
nant? he asks. I showed elaborately. What he means by 
Jews translating the word (kehal) by ekklesia once^ I know not, 
since it is translated by it constantly. 

Was the Olive tree, Abraham, or Christ ? he asks. Say your- 
self, and either position destroys your theory and sustains me. 



6o4 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

As for tliose syllogisms — beginning the question each time — 
taking for granted the very thing in dispute, why that is anything 
but logic. To parade syllogisms on that order is to satirize all 
logic. But enough here. K the learned Doctor has argu- 
ments, let them be adduced, and we will meet them. I have 
nothing to do now but to dash back the billows of opposition, 
hurl back the missiles of the archer. He cannot break the 
force of truth. My position stands as a column of granite — 
imperishable, indestructible in its nature, majestic in its 
strength, resting on the deeply-bedded rock of eternal truth. 
The Church of God is oxe forever — infants are ix it. — 
\_Time Out,'] 



Infant Baptism. 605 



DR. GRAVES' SECOND REPLY. 
Replication. 

Mr. President : — Scientists tell us that the first phase in 
which our earth appeared, betore the creative or re-forming 
fiat went forth, was a nebulous— a thin impalpable gaseous 
state, ^ow with all due respect to my distinguished opponent, 
it does seem to me that his argument for authority to baptize 
infants, is in its nebulous — gaseous state. If he has sent forth 
his creative or formative fiat, the material has not given any 
signs of obedience to it, to assume shape and tangibility. I am 
waiting patiently for the first show of authority in God's Word 
for the administration of Christian Baptism to unconscious 
babes, for the purposes, Eld. Ditzler and the Society in this 
place administer it — i. e., to wash away the guilt of original 
sin, and as an effectual means of regeneration, and reception 
into the church. He has, thus far, been discussing altogether 
another subject — i. e., whether there was a visible Christian 
Church in the Old Testament, and whether it was identical 
with the visible kingdom of Christ extant to-day. Suppose I 
grant that there was, what would he gain by the admission ? 
Can he show that the ordinances — Baptism and The Lord's 
Supper — were instituted by Christ or observed in that church? 
Evidently not. Can he anywhere find where, by express com- 
mand, the Divine Lawgiver commanded these rites to be sub- 
stituted for any existing rites, or that they should be added to 
the existing rites of an existing organization? If he can, he 
will do what no man before his time has beeia able to do. 

I propose in this speech to notice more specifically the posi- 
tions to which he is committing himself and his people. 

1. He defines the Church of God in which there have been 
infants in all ages — as 

All the saved by Grace in all ages. 

This is what is called by Theologians—" the Church invis- 
sible. 



6o6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Witli such a body, if there be one, we have nothing to do in 
this debate. Wo living infant ever was or can be in that body. 
That body has no ordinances of any kind. We have to do 
with visible, local churches that have ordinances. 

2. He affirms that all infants are born in a state of salvation. 

3. He affirms that all infants are born members of the 
church — " God's family,-' flock, yea, household, church, with- 
out the need of faith or regeneration !" N"ow I must here im- 
peach him for inveighing against the Articles of his own Dis- 
cipline, that he has sworn on bended knee to his Bishop to 
believe and teach, io^hnind and not mend." His Discipline de- 
fines a church to be " a congregation of faithful men," and 
not these alone, but in this congregation of believers "the 
pure word of God must not only be preached," but "the sac- 
raments, baptism and the Supper duly administered." 

Eld. Ditzler affirms that infants are born pure, free from 
the guilt and consequences of original sin- — in a saved state, but 
the YH Article of his Discipline teaches the very opposite of 
this ; 

VII.— Of Original or Birth-Sin.— Original Sin standeth not in the 
following of Adam (as the Pelagians do vainly talk), but it is the corrup- 
tion of the nature of every man, that natm'ally is engendered of the off- 
spring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteous- 
ness, and of his own nature inclined to evil, and that continually. 

Elder Ditzler affirms that infants are born into the church, 
while the whole office for baptism in the Discipline proceeds 
on the doctrine that by baptism they are received into the 
church, and without it no infant, any more than adult, can 
enter into the Kingdom of God. I will read a little under 
the head of " Ministration of Baptism to Infants :" 

*' Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, 
and that our Savior Christ saith. Except a man be born of water and of 
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God : I beseech you to call 
upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus Christ, that of his 
bounteous mercy he will grant to this child that which by nature he cannot 
have : that he may be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and re- 
ceived into Christ's holy Chm'ch, and be a lively member of the same. 



Infant Baptism. 607 

Then shall the minister say, 
Let us Pray. 

Almighty and everlasting God, we beseech thee for thine infinite mer- 
cies, that thou wilt look upon this chi'd : wash him and sanctify him with 
Holy Ghost ; that Ae, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received 
into the ark of 'Christ's Church." 

Now Elder Ditzler has sprinkled many a babe, and in every 

instance he has told the parents of it, that they by the act of 

baptism caused their infant to be introduced into the church. 

I read on page 205 : 

" Then the minister addressing the parents, or others presenting the 
child, shall say, 'In causing this child to be brought by baptism into 
THE Church of Christ,' " etc. 

Thus we see in the very outstart. Elder Ditzler takes posi- 
tions utterly subversive of the articles and of the ritual of his 
Discipline and his church! Now I want you all to notice this. 
Elder Ditzler came here to maintain and prove that infant 
baptism as practiced by his church, is authorized by the Word 
of God, and in his very first speech, he has affirmed that the 
teachings of his Discipline are not sustained by the Word of 
God!! 

Has he not made a bad start? He has openly repudiated the 
teachings of his Discipline ! Which will Methodists hold to, 
their Discipline or Eld. Ditzler? One or the other must be 
repudiated. 

I do not know that I understood Eld, Ditzler's position in 
his first speech, if I did, he affirmed that the Jewish Synagogue 
in the Old Testament was identical with the Church of Christ 
in the New! While this has no support in the Bible, and can 
find no favor in a Christian's mind, it is exceedingly fatal to 
his cause for there never was a Synagogue that had iniant 
members in it. 

He has thus far confounded the "church invisible" with 
the visible^ the Jewish nation with the Christian church and. 
the Jewish Synagogue with the Christian church, and finally 
the world at large with the church. He quoted to prove that 
there are sinners in the church. '-Let both grow together," etc. 
Christ distinctly said that "the field was the world" and not 
the Church in which the tares were to grow. 



6o8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

He strongly deprecated, in his first speech, quoting the 
authorities of eminent scholars to support our position, and 
twice before he closed, he quoted a list of Pedobcqotist authors 
to support PedohaiHist views ! Of what weight are such in- 
terested witnesses, in their own cause ? When I quote author- 
ities, they will be his own witnesses, testifying to the unscriptural- 
ness and untenableness of his positions, and I shall have a 
large use for these. When an advocate can win his case at 
law by the witnesses of the opposing party, it is a proof that he 
has a very clear case. Elder Ditzler will use only interested 
witnesses — men on the same side with himself, and I shall 
overthrow his positions by the testimony of his own witnesses 
alone. 

Elder Ditzler has occupied a large amount of his time, so 
far, in proving that there w^as a goodly number of Christians 
in every age, from Abel down. I wish to state again, that I 
do not deny this glorious fact, bnt that I do assert that they 
were not separated from others by any visible organization or 
ordinances — this is the simple issue. The Jewish nation nor 
local synagogue, was composed of the professedly regenerate. 

Let it be borne in mind, that Elder Ditzler holds and 
teaches that Hebrews xi. 25: " To the General Assemibly and 
Church of the first born," refers to the church invisible, the 
aggregate number of the saved in all ages. The Word of 
God is directly against this, as I will prove, when I come to 
examine the true relation of th^ Jewish Commonwealth to the 
visible church of Christ — but bear this in mind. He affirms 
in his first speech, that the church was developed out of God's 
Covenant of Redemption, etc. Will he state explicitly when 
and to whom, and where the Covenant of Grace or Redemp- 
tion was first announced, and so announced as to bring the 
church into existence. 

Another large part of his two speeches refers to matters that 
belong to the next dispensation, and have no reference what- 
ever to this — to the future return of the Jews to their own 
land, to the second coming of Christ, to the setting up of the 
Royal House of David, with David's divine son and Lord upon 



Infant Baptism. 609 

his throne forever, and strange to say, quotes these events as the 
re-establishing of the Christianchurchduring the present Gos- 
pel dispensation ! He evidently has no clear conception of th« 
significancy of most of the passages he has quoted, for he inter- 
mixes, confuses and confounds them to the bewilderment 
of his people. 

In the regular course of my explication, I will explain the 
covenant made with David, and then all can see what is meant 
by building again the tabernacle of David that is fallen down- 
not the church of Christ in any sense» Before replying further 
I respectfully ask him to explain definitely, what he means by 
these terms : 

1. The remnant that shall return. 

2. The good Olive tree, what he claims it represents— 

3. The root of this tree. 

4. The branches of it. 

5. The wild Olive tree represents whom? 

I think it is his duty to explain what he means by the terms 
he uses, and whenever he does, I will reply.- 

Aegument and Explication. 

I closed my last speech by asking where his church, the 
first Christian model church, was developed. I could find 
nothing like it in Eden, nor even in the family of Abel, nor 
in the Ark, nor yet in the families of Abraham, Isaac or 
Jacob, nor in Egypt. Where are we to look for it ? The 
Jewish church — -the Jewish church is the place, and the thing 
we hear on every hand. 

How much the Elder — how much Pedobaptists for the past 
200 years have made of the Jewish Church! But, alas ! as it is 
about sprinkling and the grounds of Infant Baptism, they 
cannot agree among themselves when it commenced ! The 
majority of writers, and Presbyterians generally, maintain that 
it was constituted in connection with the. Covenant of Grace, 
that was made with Abraham, ratified by the Seal of Cir- 

as 



6ro The Great Carrollton Debate. 

cumcision. But my learned friend declares, before Abra- 
ham's day it was, being 1000 years before Circumcision! 
Others still contend that it commenced with Moses at Sinai. 

As I have abundantly refuted my opponent's theory, and 
with it his whole argument, I will briefly state and notice 
these also, since it is this proposition, by whomsoever held, 
upon whatsoever ground, I wish to disprove. 

That this Covenant with Abraham is by the most eminent 
Pedobaptists believed and held and put forth as their only 
real ground to justify Infant Baptism, let me read the state- 
ments of a few of their brightest lights. Dr. Wardlaw, of 
England, says : 

" We state*-our argument thus: Before the coming of Christ the Cov- 
enant of Grace had been revealed, [i. e., to Abraham] ; and in that Cov- 
enant there exists a Divinely instituted connection between children and 
their parents; the sign and seal of the blessings of the Covenant was, by- 
Divine appointment administered to children ; and there can be produced 
no satisfactory evidence of this connection having been done away." — 
Inft. Bap. p. 2a. 

Here God's Covenant with Abraham and his seed is re- 
garded as " The Covenant of Grace,,' which is the everlast- 
ing Covenant of Redemption. 

All Pedobaptists who believe the church was constituted 
by the covenant made with Abraham agree with Dr. Wardlaw 
that the Covenant of Circumcision is the everlasting Covenant 
of Grace. This is their first and fatal error as I will show 
when I explain the Covenants and the law. This egregious 
error is the main strength of infant baptism ! Upon this bank 
of fog the entire argument to support it is founded. 

The great Dr. Wilson of England, Presbyterian ,^ in his 

work on Infant Baptism, and the setting up of the church, 

says: 

"It is upon the constitution and membership of that church under the 
immediate superintendence of the author of this covenant [Abrahamic] 

that THE ABGTTMENT FOE INFAJSfT BAPTISM IS ENTIRELY FOlTiSDED." 

The great Dr. Chalmers declared that the main strength of 
Infant Baptism lies in the Covenant of CircuuKJision. 

Prof. A. A. Hodge of Princeton, 'New Jersey, in his outlines 
of Theology, says : 



Infant Baptism. 6ii 

'The church is an outward visible society of professors, He establishes 
them by the covenant he made with Abraham. "• 

With these agree the most eminent Pedobaptist Theolo- 
gians and Commentators. Let us examine the claim made 
for his church, and learn who may be members of it, and how 
initiated. 

The covenant of which circumcision afterwards became the 
visible token, was made with Abraham when he was an idol- 
ater, as his fathers were, living beyond the river Euphrates — 
see Gen. 12th chapter. 

If it did constitute his family into a Christian Church, the 
first and model church, then it was composed entirely of idolaters; 
and as for Abraham's family, there were no infants, not 
even children in it- — 

Eld. Ditzler urges that he was here called out trom among 
the wicked and separated unto God, as the church is said to 
be called out from the world, etc. How could he have been 
separated from the wicked by this mere change of locality, 
and when he went forth among a people as idolatrous and 
more wicked than the family of Terah a^id the Chaldeans 
around him? This call was the simple segregation of Abra- 
ham's family from his father's family for God's own particular 
purpose. ' I will examine this matter further in my next. I 
want to give him something definite to do, and therefore pre- 
sent my direct refutation: 

Refutation, 

Arg. V. (1.) Positive ordinances oir institutions of Christianity require 
in all cases, positive comnianda. 

(2.) The baptism of unconscious infants which is a positive ordinance, 
is nowhere commanded in the word of Qod. 

If Infant Baptism is anywhere expressly commanded in the 
word, let Mr. Ditzler produce the passage. But he has im- 
pliedly confessed, as has the Committee of his church, that 
there exists no such command, for they steadfastly refused to 
accept a proposition, affirming that it was commanded. If 
they knew of such a command would they have refused to 



6i2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

have affirmed it? And Pedobaptists invariably in all discus- 
sions refuse to affirm that Infant Baptism was commanded by 
Christ, or that the Bible contains a solitary precept for it. 

(3.) Therefore Infant Baptism is not an institution of Christianity. 
But I will buttress this by another. 

Aug. VI. (1). That rite or ordinance is evidently not an institution of 
Christianity but a human tradition of which confessedly by all, no clear 
example can be found in the word of God. 

(2). But there can be no clear example of Infant Baptism found in the 
word of God. 

The proof of this is, 1. From the first introduction of the 
practice into the world (it never was practiced by a Church of 
Christ) in the fourth or fifth century until now, its supporters 
have been challenged to produce an example and they have 
frankly confessed that they could not, because it was not in 
the Word. 

(3). Ergo, Infant Baptism is evidently not an institution of Christianitj^ 
but a human tradition. 

Couple these two arguments into one. 

Aeg. VII. (1). That ordinance which no express command for, or un- 
doubted example of, can be found in the New Testament or Bible, is evi- 
dently not of God but a human tradition. 

(2). But there can be neither an express command for, nor an undoubted 
example of, Infant Baptism, found in the word of God, and of course not 
in the New Testament 

(3). Ergo — Infant Baptism is not of God, but a human tradition. 

The practice, therefore, hangs upon the second of these two 

propositions, and 1 support it with this argument. 

Aeg. Vni. (1). If there was one precept for, or example of, Infent 
Baptism in the Bible, the supporters of the practice could and would have 
found it in the course of 1400 years, and the most distinguished scholars 
and advocates would not frankly admit there was neither. 

(2). But they have not found the precept or the example, and their 
standard scholars and advocates, frankly admit that neither the one nor 
the other can be found in the Word, of God. 

Ergo — (3). The word does not contain either precept for, or example of, 
Infant Baptism, 

Let me here submit sufficient proofs tp sustain my minor. 

LuTHEE.— "It cannot be proved by the sacred Scripture that infant bap- 
tism was institutedby Christ"— In A. R.'s Vanity of Inf. Bajp., part ii, p.8. 



Infant Baptism. 613 

Ebasmus. "Paul does not seem in Bom. vi, 4 to treat about infants. 
. . . It was not yet the custom for infants to be baptized." — Anno, on 
Rom. V, 14. 

CJAiiViN. — "Because Christ requires i:eaching before baptizing, and will 
have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism does not seem to be 
rightly administered, except faith precede." — In WaUaceon Chr. Bap. p, 52. 

liiMBORCH. — "There is no express command for it in Scripture ; nay, all 
those passages wherein baptism is commanded, do immediately relate to 
adult persons, since they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is pre- 
requisite as a necessary quaUfication. . . . There is no instance that 
can be produced, from whence it may indisputably be inferred, that any 
diUd was baptized by -the Apostles." — Com. Sys. of Biy., b. v, c. xxii, § 2. 

Bp. Burnet.— "There is no express precept, or rule, given in the New 
Testament for the Baptism of infants." — Hxpo. of 39 Art. Art. xxvii. 

Bb. M. Stuart. — "Commands, or plain and certain examples, in the 
New Testament relative to it, I do not find." — On Baptism, p. 201. 

R. Montgomery. — "Scripture makes no direct and authoritative refer- 
ence to infant baptism at all. It cannot be shown that Scripture gives 
aaiyopen, plain, and decisive precept to baptize infants" [The Gospel^ in 
Advance, &c., p. 402.) 

Arg. DL (1). If none are to be baptized by the authority of the Great 
Commission, Matt. 28, which is the only law of baptism, but such as are 
made disciples by being taught, 

(2). Then, as unconscious infants are incapable of being taught, 

(3). They ought not to be baptized. 

That none are authorized to be baptized by the authority 
of the Great Commission, but such, etc., is proved by both 
the command itself and every example recorded in the TsTew 
Testament. 

It is also supported by the most eminent Pedobaptist com- 
mentators themselves : 

Doddridge. — " I think that illumination, as well as regeneration, in 
the most important and Scriptural sense of the words, regularly, precedes 
the administration of the ordinance of baptism. — [T^me out. 



6i4 The Great Cajrrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S THIRD SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Mobbratobs : — As I have in, all the argument I 
want now or need, till I take up another point, (and I need 'iio 
more at all — my proposition is put beyond all hope of suc- 
cessful attack and Dr. Graves realizes that fully) there is only 
ane thing we have to do — hurl back the attacks of the opposi- 
tion. We have and hold possession of the field. All we need to 
do is, hold on to the fort. He wished to confine it to the New 
Testament. O, yes ; but — how much of the New lestament did 
HE quote in his first hour's speech on Mode ? Not one letter — not 
one sentence in a whole hour's speech ! ! Think of the change 
that has so very suddenly come over the spirit of his di*eams ! 
How can the economies— the principles of divine government he under- 
stood without studying God's laws, his established processes of gov- 
ernment ? What Supreme Judge would even attempt a decision 
where most ordinary rights are involved without going into the 
constitution and fundamental laws that had given rise to all 
subsequent institutions, laws and Government? When es- 
pecially all the law terms were in long use — all the phraseolo- 
gy, and still the same people are the only subjects as yet, and tihe 
same law-gwQv speaking ? Is it not wonderfully strange that 
man can be so blinded by prejudices as not to see such plain 
principles and facts? Does not Paul tell us, 2 Tim. iii, 15-17 
that all Scripture is given by in3piration, yea, and ^Hs profitable 
for doctrine, for instruction in righteousness, etc," What Scrip- 
ture was this that Timothy had learned when (brephae) a babe, 
a child ? Not a word of the Neiv Testament then existed. It was 
the Old' Yet the last letter Paul ever wrote tells us it is prof- 
itable for doctrine and instruction, etc. So, "the Bereans are 
commended by the Apostles for searching and seeing wheth- 
er what the Apostles preached was so or not. Not a word of the 
New Testament did they have. But Apostolic practice tallied eX' 
actly with the Scriptures which daily they searched. Thus all 
legal rights, all common sense, and all Scripture teaching tell 



Infant Baptism. 615 

us to do as we have done — harmonize tlie action of deity and 
study his government and word to know the truth. On oM 
else — atonement, pardon, (justification) redemption, divinity ot 
Christ — all go to the Old Testament, but on Infant Baptism — on 
jtist this one question, cut up the Bihle and let us begin in the 
middle of things — not as in all else — at the beginning ! He 
says "the church was founded on circumcision." We will 
simply say it is not so — he gave not a word of proof — and I defer 
my examination of that to my nex^ speech. 

He reads from certain works and asserts that we baptize in- 
fants as a means of grace to them I He knows we never did so. 
He knows he puts on those wor-ds an interpretation they are 
not intended by us to have. 

By "means of grace" both Baptists and Pedobaptists in all 
such cases mean, aids, helps in duty, that in all cases where we 
pray, take the Lord's supper, be baptized, contemplating adults 
in all these cases and only them, as he well knows, the parties so 
"using the means of grace" are aided, strengthened and estab- 
lished in the faith, and enjoy the pleasant consciousness of doing 
their duty, while God works within. These writers are not 
presuming that enemies are lurking in the bushes always ready 
to torture their honest words, garble their sentences, and mar 
their meanings. 

He says the sign represents a lie in the infant ; if baptism is 
a sign, there is nothing in the infant it can represent. 

1. We know circumcision was a sign of the circumcision of 
the heart. Gen. xvii, 11, with Rom. iv; 11, 28, 29; Col. ii,ll. 
Yet it was administered to infants at eight days old. We 
have God's word for aU of that, 

2. Circumcision was constantly appealed to — used as sym- 
bolic of loving God with a pure heart. Deut. x, 16 ; Jer. ix, 
26 ; iv, 45; Lev. xxvi, 41; Ezek. xliv, 8-10; Acts vii, 51 ; 
Phil, iii, 3 ; Jer. ix, 25, 26. Hence to "circumcise your hearts 
to love the Lord thy God" was a favorite expression. Yet it 
was administered at eight days old. 

3. We assert it does properly represent what the infant has. 
Primarily water represents ^Hnnocence" the world over, and in 
the Bible, David— "I will wash my hands in innocence,'' 



6i6 The Great Carrollton Debate^ 

Pilate washed his hands — I am free from the blood — innocent 
of the blood of Christ This use will not be questioned, we 
presume. Now though inheriting a depraved nature, no in- 
fant is guilty before God or man. He is not a sinner. He is 
innocent, ll^bw we as transgressors, sinners, have to have the 
Spirit to regenerate us to make us as innocent as the babe and 
fit for heaven. Hence the water symbolizes to us, then, most 
properly the pouring of the Spirit upon us by which, through 
regeneration, we are made innocent before God — the merit of 
the blood is applied, and a]l guilt taken away. As the child 
grows to maturity his baptism, yea, whenever he sees wat^r 
used, or falling from heaven, or drinks the pure and refreshing 
element, ought to be reminded of the water of life — the Spirit 
of grace and supplication. Thus it is to him {sperotama) the 
pledge^ the answer, 'Hhe stipulation,^'' as Peter calls it — 1. Peter, i, 
23 — of a good conscience. So this objection fails in three 
ways, is triply answered, overthrown. 

Baptism, he says — "Christian baptism constitutes the essen- 
tial diferentia^ We will see that in our next speech and down 

it will go. 

He says the national Israel was a type of the church — only a 
type of the spiritual Israel.'' "Well, now : 

1., What part was typef They had baptism — of what was it 
a type? They had circumcision — itself a sign, a token, a seal. 
Of what was it a type in the New Testament church ? By the 
gentleman's position, these things loere all tyyes of types — these 
last were types of something in the New Testament church ! [ 

Now 2. There must be a just correspondence between 
shadow and substance — between type and anti-type. They 
must correspond to a nicety m all essential ^omiQ. One may 
fall far below the other in power, force, extent. A Sabbath- 
day may represent eternal rest. A bit of bread or wine repre- 
sent the body and blood of Jesus. But there is a truth as the 
basis of the typical use of the one and the other. If, then, the 
Jewish Israel did not even require purity — require and provide 
for a pure or spiritual membership, it is a miserable type of 
the church. You fail again. Moreover — ^no proof at all was 
offered that it was the type. We deny it utterly^ 



Infant Baptism. 617 

He asks us — what was the " remnant ? *' "We demonstrated 
what it was. Paul told us most emphatically. He asks : Was 
the olive tree Abraham or Christ ? Paul tells us it was '• the 
remnant." That all unbelieving Jews "fell," "stumbled," 
" were rejected," " were broken oft'," " were cast away," "were 
cast out," as children of the bondwoman, clinging to the law 
of commandments contained in ordinances. Gal. iv. 30; 
Rom. xi. 15, 16, 17, 19, 20; Eph. ii 16. ]^ow, out of what were 
unbelievers cast — from what were they broken oft" by reject- 
ing Christ ? Whatever it was — all who believe — all who 
accept Christ are grafted into the olive from which these were 
ejected. But are we not incorporated into his church in this 
process ? Of course we are. That tells most plainly what it 
means. 

But he asks is it Christ or Abraham ? What does he mean 
by that? Simply smoke. Suppose it mean Christ? Is he 
nt>t the head of the church? Col. i. 18, 24; Eph. i. 21, 22; 
ch, iv. 13-16. If we be in him as the vine — baptized into the 
one body, "which is Christ" — 1. Cor., xii. 12, 13, are we not 
in his church ? If we are spiritually Abraham's seed, is it not 
the same? You can clearly see the whole aim of my worthy 
opponent here is dust — smoke, 

Alas ! now, the Doctor goes into " syllogisms " heavily. And 
what silly ones they are — me! Take the one I first caught. 
There must be a positive command to you else you are not 
under obligation to obey, l^o such positive command exists 
as to infants. Therefore, it is wrong — does not follow. As 
Burns says : 

"Ah, do I Uve to see it?" 

l^ow 1. There is no positive command in the Bible to any 
of us— to any of you — to be baptized ! The sole — the only 
command we have is given to the administrator of baptism 
— not to any subject at all. And our reception of it is purely 
an inference of duty. As the apostles are commanded to 
" go, disciple all the nations, baptizing them," we (1) infer it is 
perpetual — to descend through all ages, as he promised so to 
be with them always. 

2. We infer our duty to submit to baptism from the fact 



\ 



6i8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of the Apostles being so commanded. Thus we see how rash is 
his position and how defective his so-called syllogism. 

He says " 'Eo baptism — no church \" But the Jews baptized 
— were all baptized. We will notice that in our next speech 
in full. 

But he states that the kingdom of God is the church. It 
takes every visible church on earth to make up the kingdom 
of God." That is the best truth the Doctor has uttered during 
this debate. Keep on there and you are bound to get all right. 
l^ow this kingdom is spoken of in David's day often, Ps. cxiv. 
11, 12; xi, 7, 8, in Daniel vi. and often. It was familiar to the 
Jews when Christ came — in every mouth. You will not deny 
this. See Actsi. 6; Luke xi. 16; Matt. vi. 3, 10, etc. Again, 
Matt. xxi. 43, " Therefore I say unto you, [Jews] the kingdmn 
[you say church'] shall be taken from you and given [leased out,'] 
it reads in the Greek — let out] to a nation [Gentiles] bringing 
forth the fruits thereof." Here Christ tells the Jews plainly 
the kingdom they had always had — compared to having the 
use of a vineyard — so the ancient Prophet said of it also — 
should be tak^h from them. This shows former possessum — 
possession implied existence of course. 

IN'ay, the same was to be given to the Gentiles. So we saw 
from Gal. v. 30; Rom. xi. etc. The Doctor says this kingdom 
was the church. All Baptists and " Disciples" have so taught. 
So this shows the trm spiritual church had existed — was not 
destroyed — was let out to Gentiles and all on a common level. 

He says I said there was no carnal ordinance in the times 
before Abraham. I never talk so carelessly. If the Doctor 
will watch he will find that I am very careful always as to what 
I say. All I said is true, viz ; that there was no record of any 
command for an ordinance or ritualistic ceremony till circum- 
cision. Of course we all know of J^oah's altar, Abel's saeri- 
fice and Cain's ofiering. What has that to do with a recorded 
command for a regular ordinance? There is no recorded com- 
mand about any of these cases. !N'or do they rank as regular 
ritualistic ordinances to be performed like circumcision, bap- 
tism, etc. 



Infant Baptism. 6jg 

But worse and more of it ! Because Faul looks on the whole 
church as a unit — as a whole — one, just as Rora. v. and I Cor. 
XV. 18-25, etc., he treats the whole human race as a unity from a 
certain stand-point, and catalogues the representatives of the 
various ages of the church by such men as Abel, Enoch, Eli- 
jah, Abraham, Moses, etc. Dr. Graves lets himself down to 
the LITTLE twaddle of a " Disciple" preacher we heard use that 
ridiculous conceit and tells us Cain killed Abel, therefore he killed 
the church!! Has Dr. G. so abandoned all hope — has he so 
despaired of rallying that he can thu^ come down ? Surely it 
is humiliating. Here Dr. G. 1, Makes the church consist 
ALONE in the persons of its individuals, and then in visible, organ-r 
izedform. By this rule,* were all Christians disbanded — scat- 
tered abroad — there would exist no qhurch of God because 
no m^ganized forra of it is seen, and it cannot be reinstated 
a^ain. 

2, It assumes that Abel was the only good man or being then 
Ijving, whereas Paul only gives one in most of the ages he 
i-epresents. This is ad eaptandum of the most astonishing 
character^ 

Sl. He utterly ignores the point we made, viz: that the 
church is one, covering all ages, all climes^ all dispensations. 
Hance the death of this or that member affects not its exist- 
ence. It exists in Heaven and earth, in all ages, composed of 
all God's people, as we showed. Heb. xii, 24; Eph. iii, 13, 14. 
Hence,' if a/i the rnevibers mi earth were to perish, the church of 
God lives on in its membership on high — its Head — Jesus 
Christ, and its saving principles. The moment any number 
of beings embraced Christ, the Head, received the Spirit, they 
are a part of the one chureL 

This is the Bible view, but not Dr. Graves'. He denies 
that the covenant was made with Abraham. God said it w^as 
between Him and Abraham. Gen. xvii, 2: "I will make mv 
covenant between vfie and thee.'' " Behold my covenant is,with 
thee," V, 4. '^ I will establish my covenant between me and 
thee," V, 7. 

But, suppose it were not so, what has that to do here? It 
is one of the Doctor's wild theories that he runs in on prao- 



620 The Great Carrollton Debate. ** 

tical questions, that have no place here. The point is, thA 
church developed out of God's covenant of redemption, any num- 
ber or numbers of the people saved by the provisions of that 
covenant could worship together, and they would constitute a 
visible church, a local congregation, forming a _p<3!ri of God's 
spiritual family — spiritual church. All spirituality comes 
through God's covenant of redemption — all salvation. Hence 
we say the church developed out ot it, first the spiritual family, 
which is essentially and forever one. In any age or country any 
number of these co-operating together form a local church, a 
visible body. That is what we mean by visible church. As 
Dr. Graves occupies both positions on the visible — invisdbl© 
question, I know not just where he stands to-day. He is on 
both sides really, I hope he will settle yet. 

The Doctor spent fifteen minutes of his hour's speech on the 
tormer proposition, exhibiting great soreness on it. He has 
been worrying himself over Mary's feet being baptized. It was 
Christ's feet baptized by Mary, Doctor. The Doctor is so con- 
fused that he hardly knows Mary from Christ, he is very wild. 
Ewing would be good company just now — boon companions. 

Alas ! he got ofit' on logic again. And such logic ! Thert 
vms not a strictly logical proposition in anything he said, not a 
single correct syllogism. Hence it deserves no attention. 
What logic is there in such stufi' as this ? Such and such 
commentators. A., B., C, & D., say there is no express com- 
mand, or no authority to baptize infants. Pedobaptists do 
baptize them, therefore it is wrong ! ! And do you call this 
logic' Then let me follow suit. A., B., C, & D., say that 
the Baptist church is no church. Being no church it is 
wrong to baptize, etc, therefore, they do wrong, etc., etc. 

Take Mill, Whateley, Aristotle, etc., and run their text- 
books on logic through a threshing machine, and the scraps 
would be as good logic quite, as all that. 

The Doctor rails out that all the Jews, the whole band of 
them, come into the church under my principles. That all 
depends on whether they repent, believe, and thus receive 
Christ. They must be ^' Jews inwardly." "They must eat 
spiritual meat, and drink spiritual drink." " They must drink 



Infant Baptism. 62 i 

of the spiritual rock, Christ." 1 Cor. x, 2, 3, " They must 
esteem the reproach of Christ great riches," as did the old 
Jew, Moses, Heb. xi, 24, 26. All others are "rejected." So 
we elaborately and clearly explained. 

The Doctor confounds as his brethren always do, covenant 
and church. A covenant is one thing, a compact, agreement, 
or stipulation ; a church is another, being composed of people. 

He tells us circumcision was done away. It is yet to 
be observed in some great millennial vision of his. Well, 
well. That will do. Peter thought it was a burden neither 
they nor their fathers could bear. So did Paul. He indeed 
thought if ye be circumcised you became debtor to the whole 
law,*and Christ became of no eflect. Gal. v, 2, 3, 4. It seem,s 
they were as blind as we Pedobabtists, however. It is even 
to be one of the glories of the millennium!! Well, all right; 
it don't hurt my position any only it looks a little funny. 

Dr. Graves is hard to accommodate. He is now astonished 
I should get through so soon. But he was astonished Satur- 
day that I ^' tarried so long." He thought fifteen minutes 
were enough then, now, two days are short enough. Yerily 
he can't be accommodated. Now who but myself ever took a 
whole hour and a half on one single phase of this subject? 

He would have you believe I run through in hot haste as if 
tired of the subject, when he knows I dwelt ^1^6 times as long 
on the oneness of the church as any man in debate in the 
whole history of debates ever did, save myself. I know that 
this is our strong position — that they can never touch it and 
three-fourths of all we will have to say will still be in defense 
of this position. Some contend over little outside issues — some 
on the number of covenants made— confuse the people end- 
lessly. A world of dust can be blown up there, and hence the 
usual flourish of the covenants. We plant ourselves on the 
Oneness op the Covenant of Redemption — no one saved 
EXCEPT THROUGH IT — and Consequently, the Oneness op the 
Church whose Head was and is Jesus C^im^— whose salvation 
was through the covenant of redemption, not the covenant at 
Sinai for a moment. 

Once more and constantly wq call your attention to our points. 



622 The Great Carrollton, Debate 



■c^ 



1. We have met every point he has made, save we deferred 
two or three till next speech — points easily met. We have 
rolled back every objection he brought. 

2. He has not met a single point we made — no, not a point. 

1st. We showed there was a church long before Christ 
came i^ the flesh. 

2nd. That it was spiritual — 1st. in its doctrines and princi- 
ples. 2d. in its symbolic ordinances — circumcision and baptism. 

Sd. That Infants were in it — this Carson, Gale, A. Campbell 
all admit. 

4. That Infants received its svmbolic ordinances— circum- 
cism a>nd baptism. 

They demand chapter and mrse for all. We gave it. l^ow we 
demand the same. Let him show clearly, unmistakably — 

1. Where the old church was done awav. 

2. Reconcile this with God's government. 

3. Reconcile it with the prophecies of perpetuity everywhere 
given to that church, quoted by us in our two opening speeches; 
he has not dared attempt it. 

4. Let him show when and where the new church was 
organized ; then, 

5. Let him reconcile th^t with all the texts we quoted 
against its possibility, such as Matt. xxi. 43, 

6. Let him show that it is on such radically different prin- 
ciples that the infants are all legislated out, that God discovered 
his wisdom was at fault, his economy wrong, and he improved 
it.— Thne out.^ 



Infant Baptism. 623 



DR. GRAVES' THIRD REPLY. 

Replication. 

Me. President : — It is incumbent on me to follow where- 
ever my opponent sees fit to lead. But I am compelled to put 
my protest on record. He persistently refuses to define his 
terms. He has not defined what he understands to be a visi- 
ble church, nor will he endorse the definitipn contained in the 
article of his Discipline. He continues to confound what 
theologians call the invisible churchy in which there never 
was> or can be a living infant, or unregenerate person, with 
the visible body that possesses an o'rganization, laws and ordi- 
nances. I will now ask him, in your hearing, can there be a 
visible church of Christ without a definite organization, laws 
and ordinances ? I know not what he will answer ; he may 
say that these do not constitute a church, but the point is, can 
there be a Christian church without them ? Never heard of 
any sane man who would claim that there ever was, or can be. 
His Discipline says there must be sacraTnents duly administered 
where there is a church. Dr. N. Kice, (Presbyterian) says, 
without baptism, there can be no church— all standard theolo- 
gians agree with him. It then follows, conclusively, that there 
was no Christian church in the Old Testament Dispensation. 

He quotes Hebrews xii. 1, 2, in proof that those witnesses 
referred to, constituted a visible church. Paul referred to 
those worthies, naming one or two in each age, as witnesses 
of the faithfulness of God. 

He answers that, " the good olive tree is the church — ^tho 
remnant preserved." This is too indefinite for an answer. 
Will he answer this: Is the olive tree the visible Christian 
church, which Christ set up, and into which all Gentiles could 
be grafted by faith, or merely the invisible church, "the whole 
number of the saved among the Jews, in all ages ? " I want 
an answer, and then will attend to this, and show you how 



624 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

fatal to infant membership this passage is, for, if he says it 
was the church before Christ, in the wilderness, none could be 
members except they had faith. Those without it were 
broken ofl'— those who stood in it, stood by faith, and all those 
who were introduced were grafted in by faith — whatever body 
this was — it was indeed a body of faithful men — no infants in it. 

To prove the identity of the Christian with the Jewish 
nation, he strangely enough introduces the allegory of Sarah and 
Hagar, Gal. iv. 31, the very strongest and clearest Scripture, 
taken in connection with Hebrews xii. 18-29, that can be 
produced, or that need be to prove the contrary. Elder Ditzkr 
denies that the Jewish Commonwealth, or the literal Kingdom 
of Israel is typical of anything, much less of the Kingdom of 
Christ. Paul teaches differently. 

Hagar personating the Sinaitio Covenant, represented the 
literal and fleshly descendants of Abraham, as incorporated by 
that covenant into the Jewish nation — temporal Israel, a body 
of men naturally born, as Ishmael was, of whom the Jerusalem 
below was their capital city in which they were all registered. 
Sarah was a figure of the Gospel church under the adminis- 
tration of the new covenant ; and Isaac, a son of promise super- 
naturally born, was a figure of those who composed this church 
each one born from above — supernaturally born. I present 
the teachings of Adam Clarke upon thi& subject, the acknowl- 
edged exponent of all true Methodists. 

'■'■For these are the tioo covenants ] These signify two different systems of 
religion ; the one by Mases, the other by the Messiuh. 

"■The one from the mount Sinai'] On which the law was published ; which 
was typified by Hagar , Abraham's bondmaid. 

' ' Which gender eih to boTidage'] For, as the bondmaid^ or slave, could -only 
gender J hyping forth her children in a state of slavery^, and subject also to become 
slaves: SO all that are born and live under those Mosaic institutions, are 
bo7'n and live in a state of bondage; a bondage to various rites and ceremo- 
nies; under the obligation to keep the whole law;; yet, from its severity, and 
their frailness, obliged to live in the habitual breach of it ; and, in conse- 
quence, exposed to the cur»e which it pronounces. 

^^ Answereth to Jerusakm'] Hagar the bondmaid, bringing forth children 
ill a state of slavery, answereth to Jerusalem^ that tiow is, sustoichei, points out 
OT bears a similitude to Jerusalem in her present state of subjection ; which, 
with ^r children, her citizens are not only in bondage to the Romans, but in a 



Infant Baptism. 625 

worse bondage to the law^ to its oppressive ordinances^ and to the heavy 
curse which it has pronounced against all those who do not keep them " 
"7s/r«e, which is the moiher of us all.'] There is a spiritual Jerusalem, of 
which this is the type ; and this Jerusalem, in which the souls of all the 
righteous are, is free from all bondage and sin ; or by this, probably the 
kingdom of- the Messiah was intended ; and this certainly answers best to 
the apostle's meaning, as the subsequent verse shows There is an earthly 
Jerusalem^ but this earthly Jerusalem typifies a heavenly Jerusalem: the former 
with all her citizens j is in bondage; the latter is a free city, and all her inhab- 
itants are also and this Jerusalem is our tnother ; it signifies the church of 
Christ, the metropolis of Christianity, or rather the state of liberty into which 
all true believers are brought." 

]^ow Ishmael represents in this allegory, all merely natur- 
ally born persons, the infants of all, they are carnal, generated 
children of wrath, until re-generated by the Holy Spirit, and 
what saith the Scriptures. Cast out the bondwoman and her 
eon, cast out of the Gospel church what they represent — purge 
away all Judaism and its fleshly claims and laws — reject all 
merely naturally-born infants, for these by reason of their 
first birth cannot and shall not heir with the son of the free 
woman or the regenerate, the children of God by faith in 
Christ. 

He has asked for an express law to put infants out. Here 
is a positive command not to admit the infant of any one, Jew 
or Gentile, saint or sinner, into the church of the IlTew Testa- 
ment. Cast them all out, is the language of the Holy Ghost 
which all men will do well to heed, natural infants shall 
not enjoy church privileges with the children of God. 

All can see that the Apostle Paul knew and acknowledged 
no organization, no body of men under the Jewish Dispensa- 
tion of the Covenant that God made with Abraham, that was 
identical with the church of the Gospel Dispensation, and we 
should recognize none — to do so is to Judaize Christianity. 

Hebrews xii. 
I will, in connection with this, explain Hebrews xii, which 
my opponent most strangely perverted, claiming that it referred 
to the " Church invisible," " the whole number of the saved 
in all ages." Instead of referring to such a body or to the 
Saints under the Jewish Dispensation or any number of them, 

the passage expressly refers to the Gospel Church as the auti- 
sm 



626 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

type of the Jews as a Nation, and while under the Sinai tic Cov- 
enant — the Law. I know of no Scripture that is more generally 
or more grossly mistaught than this, unless it is Matt. xi. 12. 
In giving the true explication of this one passage, it will be a 
perfect refutation of all he has advanced to support his cause 
I will give a running exegesis of the entire passage. 

Verse 18. For ye are not come unto the mount that might be 
touched, etc.; to Sipalpable, material mountain, like Mt. Sinai — 
to which the literal Jews were once brought. 

Verse 22. But ye are come unto Zion — even unto the city 
of the living God — the heavenly Jerusalem. The Gospel Church 
is represented constantly under the figure of a City — the city 
of the living God — the city that hath foundations, whose 
builder and maker is God — the Church in her glorified state 
— when she has become the Lamb's wife is represented by the 
symbol of a City. " And he showed me that great City, the 
holy Jerusalem descendino; out of Heaven from God," Rev. 
xxi. 10. 

''And to an innumerable company of angels — as compared 
to those by whom the law was given — for all the angels of God 
-are called to be ministering spirits, to minister unto the heirs 
of Salvation, and the number saved is to be more than any 
man can number — innumerable. 

Verse 23. To the general assembly, and church of the first born. 
A. Clarke says that some of the best AiSS. connect general as- 
sembly to angels and several of the fathers quote it thus, "to 
the general assembly of innumerable angels," and approves 
the rendering. 

"0/ the first born, protokoon, literally of firstborn ones." Is- 
rael, as a nation, was God's first born. But each member 
of the church, under the Gospel dispensation, being born from 
above and adopted as his child, is joint heir with God's first 
born, and only son. A Scriptural church is composed of first 
born ones, and the name of every true member is registered 
in heaven — inscribed in the Lamb's Book of Life — while the 
members of the Jewish nation were registered only in Jeru- 
salem. 

" To God, the Judge of all'' the charch of first born ones is a 
company of pardoned sinners, and if truly pardoned, they 



Infant Baptism. 627 

have been tried and adjudged worthy of death by the legal 
judge, and by him alone pardoned and set free. God hath 
appointed Christ alone, to be judge, and all must come before 
Him, as a judge, to be tried; either graciously pardoned, or 
condemned to eternal death. Every Christian, therefore, has 
once come unto, been tried, and pardoned by the judge of the 
quick and the dead. And no future judgment awaits such. 

^^And to the Spirits of just men made perfect — those sac- 
rifices under the law and blood of bulls and goats could make 
no one perfect, but the sacrifice and blood of Christ, which every 
member of a Gospel church comes to, can ; and therefore 
such a church may well be called a company of justified men, 
made perfect by the ofiering of Jesus Christ. 

Verse 22. ^^And to Jesus, the Mediator of the Neio covenant." 
Moses was the mediator of the old covenant, a figure, 
shadow of the real and the eftectual Mediator of the new 
covenant. Every member of the church of first born ones 
is supposed to have come to God — not through a mere man, 
but through Jesus. 

" And to the blood of sprinkling that speaketh better things than 
that of Abel" The Jews under the law came to the sprink- 
ling of the blood of sin ofi:erings, that did not avail to cleanse 
the conscience from its sense of guilt, or the heart from its 
defilements ; but the blood of the everlasting covenant even 
of Jesus, cleanseth from all sin and never loses its efficacy, 
forever putting away the remembrance of sins — and so in- 
finitely better than the blood that Abel ofiered. 

Yerse 27. And this word-^yet once more signifieth the removing of 
those things that are shahen as of things that are made, that those things 
which cannot be shaken mag remain." The whole Jewish polity 
with the ceremonial law were the things made and temporary, 
which were shaken and soon to be removed, to give place to 
things that cannot be shaken and are never to be' removed — 
the visible church and kingdom that are never to be broken 
in pieces or given to another people, but to stand forever. 
Therefore the Apostle could well have said as he does in verse 

28. " Wherefore we, receiving' a kingdom which cannot be moved, 
etc. Now mark, this was not a "Kingdom in the skies" or 



628 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

future to them, but present and one they were then in 
possession of, and so agrees with the expressions throughout 
this passage — they had already come unto Mt. Zion, and to 
the general assembly and church of first born ones. If this 
was the Church triumphant, he would not have said they had 
come to it. 

Every one can see therefore that this church spoken of here 
was something then present and on this earth, the antithesis 
and antitype of the Jewish Commonwealth. So the latest 
critics, as Dean Alford decide. 

So important and conclusive is this passage, that I give with 
the utmost pleasure the comments of Adam Clarke, at length 
on verses 22, 23 and 24 — and most respectfully press them upon 
the attention of my opponent, for cruder views than his upon 
all the passages I have noticed, I have never met with, and 
Methodists should hear their greatest scholar and commentator. 

" On the whole, I thmk the description in these verses, refers to the state 
of the church here below, and not to any heavenly state. Let us review the 
particulars — 

1. As the law was given at Mount Sinai; so the Gospel was given at 
Mount Sion. 

2. As Jerusalem was the city of the Living God, while the Jewish dis- 
pensation lasted ; for there was the temple, its services, sacrifices, &c. the 
Christian Church is now called the heavenly Jerusalem, the city of the Liv- 
ing God. In it is the great Sacrifice ; in it that spiritual worship which 
God, the infinite Spirit, requires. 

3. The ministry of angels was used under the Old Covenant ; but that was 
partial, being granted only to particular persons, such as Moses, Joshua, 
Manoah, &c. ; and only to a few before the law, as Abraham, Jacob, &c. 
It is employed under the New Covenant, in its utmost latitude ; not to a few 
peculiarly favored people, but to aU the followers of God in general : so 
that, in this very epistle, the apostle asserts that they are all ministering 
spirits, sent forth to minister to them that shall be heirs of salvation. 

4. At the giving of the law, when the church of the Old Covenant was 
formed, there was a general assembly of the different tribes by their represen- 
tatives : in the Gospel church, aU who believe in Christ, of every nation, 
and kindred, and tongue, form one grand aggregate body. Believers of all 
nations, of aU languages, of aU climates, however differing in their color, 
or local habits, are one in Christ Jesus ; one body of which He is the Head 
and the Holy Spirit the Soul. 

5. The jirst-born under the old dispensation had exclusive privileges : 
they had authority, emolument, and honor, of which the other children 
in the same family did not partake ; but, under the new, aU who beUeve in 



Infant Baptism. 629 

Christ Jesus, with a heart unto righteousness, are equally children of God, 
are all entitled to the same privileges, for, says the apostle, ye are all 
children of God by faith in Christ ; and to them that receive Him, He 
gave authority to become the children of God ; so that, through the whole 
of this Divine family, all have equal rights and equal privileges; all have 
God for their portion and heaven for their inheritance. 

6. As those who had the rights of citizens were enrolled^ and their names 
entered on tables^ ^c, so that it might be known who were citizens and who 
had the rights of such ; so, all the faithful under the New Covenant are 
represented as having their names written in heaven, which is another 
form of speech for have a right to that glorious &tate, and all the blessings it 
possesses ; there, are their possessions, and there are their rights. 

7. Only the high-priest, and he but one day in the year, was permitted 
to approach Gvd, under the Old Testament dispensation : but, under the 
New, every believer in Jesus can come even to the throne; each has liberty 
to enter into the holiest by the blood of Jesus ; and to real Christians alone 
it can be said, Ye are. come — to God the judge of all ; to Him ye have constant 
access, and from Him ye are continually receiving grace upon grace. 

8. We have already seen that the righteous perfect, or the just men made 
perfect, is a Jewish phrase, and signified those who had made the furthest 
advances in moral rectitude. The apostle uses it here to point out those 
in the church of Christ who had received the high^t degrees of grace, 
possessed most of the mind of Christ, and were doing and suffermg most 
for the glory of God ; those who were most deeply acquainted with the 
things of God, and the mysteries of the Gospel, such as the apostles, 
evangehsts, the primitive teachers, and those who presided in and over 
different churches. And these are termed the spirits, dikoioon teteleioomenoon 
of the just perfected, because they were a spiritual people; forsaking earth, 
and living in reference to that spiritual rest that was typified by Canaan. 
In short all genuine Christians had communion with eeuch other, through 
God's Spirit, and even with those whose faces they had not seen in the 
flesh. 

9. Moses, as the servant of God, and Mediator of the Old Covenant, was of 
great consequence in the Levitical economy. By his laws and maxims 
every thing was directed and tried ; and to him the whole Hebrew people 
came for both their civil ond religious ordinances ; but Christians come to 
Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant: He not only stands immedi- 
ately between God and man, but reconciles and connects both. Fom Him 
we receive the Divine law, by His maxims our conversation is to be ruled, 
and He gives both the light and life by which we walk ; these things Mo- 
ses could not do ; and for such spirituality and excellence, the Old Coven- 
ant made no provision ; it was, therefore, a high privilege to be able to say, 
Ye are come to Jesus, the Mediator of the New Covenant, 

10. The Jews had their blood of sprinkling ; but it could not satisfy, as 
touching things which concerned the conscience : it took away no guilt, 
it made no reconciliation to God ; but the blood of sprinkling under the 
Christian covenant purifies from all unrighteousness ; for the blood of the 



630 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

New Covenant was shed for the remission of sins, and by its infinite merit, 
it still continues to sprinkle and cleanse the unholy. All these are privi- 
leges of infinite consequence to the salvation of man ; privileges, which 
should be highly esteemed and most cautiously guarded ; and because they 
are so great, so necessary, and so unattainable in the Levitical economy, 
therefore we should lay aside every weight, &c., and run with persever- 
ance the race that is set before us. I see nothing, therefore, in these verses 
which determines their sense to the heavenly state ; all is suited to the 
state of the church of Christ, mihtant, here on earth : and some of these 
particulars cannot be applied to the chm'ch triumphant on any rule of 
construction whatever. 

I will now resume my search for his church in the family 
of Abraham. 

So far as the recoixl informs us, Abraham the head of this 
church was at this time an unbeliever and an unjustified man 
for years after — see Gen. xv. 6. 

But it does not relieve the matter to claim that the church 
was constituted when circumcision was instituted twenty-five 
years after. I think it would hardly come up to the imperfect 
definition given in my friend's law book — "a body of faith- 
ful men" — nor would the only condition of membership have 
been answered — " a desire to -Qiee the wrath to come," for 
only one of all the number would have met Eld. Ditzler^s 
invariable condition — i. e.^ "justified by faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ, without which, no one ever rightly was, or ever can 
be a member of the church of Christ." Then, Abraham and his 
son Ishmael, now thirteen years old, a wild, unregenerate boy, 
and all Abraham's servants, an army of idolaters, of all ages, 
from the infant to the old man, either born in his house, or 
bought with his money. This is his model. Christian church! 
one Christian to a thousand sinners? But what were the con- 
ditions of membership in this church ? Not repentance, not 
faith in God — not regeneration of heart, or reformation of life, 
but it was the faith of one man, a father or master, alone. 
Suppose we grant it was a Christian church, and all Abraham's 
family, wife, sons, and relations, and idolatrous servants, were 
entitled to membership, because he was, what else follows, 
from this, just as logically as the baptism of an infant eight 
days old ? Why 

1. That all children and staves whose ancestors, however 
remote — though a thousand years ago — were Christians^ mu&t 



Infant Baptism. 631 

be brought in without profession of personal faith or repen- 
tance. This was the law of circumcision. 

Let me bring this home to each. 

A few years ago the institution of slavery was in force with 
us as it was in the patriarchal age, and there were masters 
who owned one thoue-and slaves. Suppose one of these to 
have professed faith in Christ, and ofiered himself to one of 
Elder Ditzler's societies in Mississippi or Louisiana. The 
Elder, carrying out his theory, would not only receive him to 
membership, but his godless wife and eight or ten wicked 
children of all ages, from eight days to forty years, but these 
one thousand slaves also, untaught, unbelieving, and not a 
whit better than heathen, who never heard of Christ ! 
What sort of a church would this be ? Kow each one of the 
embruted slaves would have as good a right to membership in 
the church as the infant of eight days old, if baptism comes in 
the room of circumcision and is governed by the same law. 

But this is not all, nor the worst of it. 

2. This theory would embrace every godless man and 
woman and infant and slave in the county, in the State, in the 
nation — in the world and bring them all into the Church 
without repentance — because one and all had a believing an- 
cestor — if we have to go back to l!^oah for him. 

Now, following out my illustration. Upon one of the 
neighboring plantations lives a family of unregenerate chil- 
dren, whose father was a believer, and upon another planta- 
tion, another family of godless children, whose grand-parents 
were believers, and upon still another place a family of non- 
professors, one of whose remote ancestors, some one hundred 
years ago, was a believer, and on each of these places were a 
thousand untaught slaves, from eight days to eighty years old. 
According to Eld. Ditzler's theory, all these godless mothers 
and children with their four thousand untaught slaves, must 
be taken into Eld. Ditzler's church, and the ordinances admin- 
istered to them. What sort of a church would this be ? A church 
in which the godless wife and children and all slaves of any 
age, whose masters should profess faith in Christ, must be 
included and granted all its privileges? 



632 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I say this is what this false position demands, and the most 

eminent advocates of Pedobaptism have frankly avowed it. 

The Westminister Assembly's Confession of Faith says : 

"The seed and posterity of the faithful born within the Church, have by 
their bhth, interest in the covenant and a right to the seal. 

Mr. Rothband says : 

"Children may be lawfully accounted within God's Covenant if any of 
then- ancestors, in any generation were faithful." — [In Tombe's Exam- 
ples p. 32. 

Peter Martyr says : 

"Infants that are born of believers belong to God before their Baptism. 
Though they had not a father or mother that was acquainted with God, 
yet perhaps they had some ancestors who were so favored and therefore 
they are members of the Church. 

]^ow since it is a noteworthy fact that there never yet has 
been invented a theory by one set of Pedobaptist theolo- 
gians on which to ground Infant Baptism, that another set, 
fully as eminent, has not exposed as groundless and absurd, 
so with this. Thos. Boston, a renowned Presbvterian fheolo- 
gian, author of Fourfold State, thus upsets my opponent's the- 
ory of getting all children into the Church under the Old Tes- 
tament economy. Will all Presbyterians hear their witness 
testify ? 

ft/ 

Thos. Boston says : 

"If infants may derive their rights before the church, or the evidence of 
this right before the Lord, to baptism from their remote parents, then 
either from any of them whatsoever or from some of them onty, I know 
no midst. If from any of them whatsoever, then there is no infant under 
heaven that hath not a right to baptism ; which is absurd. The reason of 
the consequence is because there is not an infant in the world that is not 
come of parents that were godly ; which will hold true so long as it remains 
undoubted that aU the world is come of Noah and of Adam." 

But why need I quote more authorities to prove the absurd- 
ity of the only argument the standard advocates of Infant Bap- 
tism rely on to support it. I fear Eld. Ditzler has not permit- 
ted himself to understand the main argument for Infant Bap- 
tism. I want to hear him develop his views of the Covenant 
of Circumcision, and its relation to the church. 

That rule in Logic is self-evident to you all, that an argu- 
ment that pro^ c? too much is manifestly false. 



Infant Baptism. 633 

But there is another singular malady of which this whole 
theory is fatally sick. None but males were ever, are now or 
EVER CAN be MEMBERS of the Church of Christ unless he 
can find some express modification of the law of circum- 
cision in the ]^ew Testament. He does or he does not, 
rely upon the provisions of the covenant of circumcision 
in order to get the children of all, saints and sinners, into 
his church. If he does, then I will force him to avow the po- 
sition that Thos. Boston demonstrates as absurd — a theory 
that receives all, young and old, masters and slaves, by baptism 
into the Church as the statute law of his Church does, or if he 
does not rely upon it, he should come boldly forth and repudi- 
ate it. And I intend to force him to do the one or the other. 
We all want to know where Methodists stand on this question, 
from what source they claim authority for Infant Baptism as 
they practice it — for it should be known to all that Methodists 
do not base their practice of it upon the same ground that 
Presbyterians do. 

'Now Mr. President the first rule in Hedge's Logic, by which 
we are governed, requires that every term used by a disputant 
should be defined. I, therefore, respectfully call upon my op- 
ponent, as it is my right, to define the terms he is constantly 
using. 

1. What he means by a Christian church, or Church of 
God — or if he has not the time, will he state before this audi- 
ence, 

2. It he endorses Art. 25 of his own Discipline as a defini- 
tion by which he will be understood in this discussion. 

3. I call on him to define what he means by the Covenant 
of Grace — does he mean " The Covenant of Redemption ?" 

4. Will he tell us when, where and with whom that Covenant 
was made ? 

5. Did or did it not call a Christian Church into existence 
constituting the one with whom it was made the federal head 
of it? 

6. Will he definitely tell us when and where the Christian 
Church, or Church of Christ, was constituted ? 



634 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

7. Will he state distinctly in what relation Abraham stood 
to the Christian Church — was he the head of it ? Was he a 
member of it ? 

8. Will he definitely and explicitly state what relation, if 
any, circumcision has to the rite of Christian baptism, and es- 
pecially tell us if it comes "in the room of it ? " 

While he is preparing his answers, I will tell you what some 
clear-headed Presbyterian theologians say about the relation 
of circumcision and baptism. 

Dr. Erskine. — "Baptism has none of those properties which rendered 
ck'cumcision a fit sign and seal of an external covenant. Circumcision 
impressed an abiding mark ; was the characteristic of Judaism ; belonged 
to all Jews, however differing in opinion or practice ; and those born of a 
Jew, even when come to age, were entitled to it ; whereas baptism im- 
presses no abiding mark. A profession and suitable practice, not baptism, 
is the characteristic of Christianity" {Theol. Diss., pp. 78, 79). He also 
ssLys: "When God promised the land of Canaan to Abraham and his 
seed, circumcision was instituted, for this among other purposes, to shew 
that descent from Abraham was the foundation of his posterity's right to 
those blessings." — TmoI. Diss., p. 9. 

Dr. W. L. AiiEXANDER, on Dr. Wardlaw's argument that because the 
infant descendants of Abraham were ckcumcised, the infant children of 
believers should be baptized, questions "if any one tried to re-produce the 
argument in his own mind, without feeUng that there were some serious 
gaps in it, over which one had to take a flying leap in order to reach the 
conclusion.". "I can understand how a certain class of i3rivileges should 
run along the line of natural descent, and how another class should run 
along the hne of spiritual descent ; but how the two should interlace so as 
that natural descent should entitle' to privileges which belong only to 
spiritual descent, I find nothing in the reasoning of this book that helps 
me to comprehend." This argument from the Abrahamic covenant in 
favour of infant baptism always presents itself in my mind as fallacious." 
Fm'ther, "If baptism is to be regarded as having come in the place of cir- 
cumcision, the argument from the Abrahamic covenant hes altogether 
with the Baptists.— jLife of Dr. W., pp. 237-239. 

Dr. M. Stuart. — "How unwary, too, are many excellent men, in con- 
tending for infant baptism on the ground of the Jewish analogy of circum- 
cision ! Are females not proper subjects of baptism ? And again, Are a 
man's slaves to be baptized because he is? Are they church members of 
course where they are so baptized ? Is there no ditiference between en- 
grafting into a politico-ecclesiastical community, and into one, of which it 
is said that it is not of this world ? In short, numberless, difficulties 
present themselves in our way as soon as we begin to argue in such a 
manner as this." — Old Tes, Can. 



Infant Baptism. 635 

Who before me will say, in view of all these facts, that there 
is the shadow of authority in the Covenant made with Abra- 
ham, for the baptism of an infant, on the ^ground that the 
family of Abraham and the Christian Church, under the l!^ew 
Testament, were one and the same bodies, baptism only 
having superseded the old token of the same covenant ? Read 
the provisions of that covenant. It was an everlasting cov- 
enant, to be perpetually observed by the self-same family to 
which it was originally given, that of Abraham alone, and 
for the self-same jt?i^rj905'e, and to secure the self-same ends. The 
token is as unalterable and unchangeable as the covenant it ratified. 
lN"ow by what authority does Elder Ditzler or any man abolish 
it, or change and supersede it by baptism ? i^ot from God the 
author of it. CJirist did not change it. The ap-o&tles did not. 
They practiced it. Christian Jews practiced circumcision 
throughout the apostolic age, but not as a church rite. They 
may, and I believe should now, and until Christ's second com- 
ing. It is a mark that designates the nation. It never will 
be discontinued by the Jews until the Advent. 

Refutation. 

Aug. X. (1). If there be but one way for all, both parents and children, 
Jews and Gentiles, to be admitted into the Gospel church, and that is 
upon the profession of their personal faith in Christ and baptism, then 
should neither parent nor child to the end of time be admitted in any 
other way. 

(2) But there is but one way. 

If there is a Baptism for infants without faith, and another 
for adults with faith, then there are two baptisms. 1 Cor. xii, 
13. '' For in one spirit we are all immersed into one body" — 
i. e.jthe visible Church of Christ, (read rest of the chapter). 
Jno. iii, 15, ''Except any one be born of water, and added to 
the previous birth of the Spirit from above, he cannot enter the 

Kingdom of God.'* 

(3). Therefore no man, woman or child, was ever naturally born into 
Christ's Church, which is fatal to the whole theory of Infant Baptism. 

Aug. XI. (1) Whatever practice adds the unsaved to the Church of 
Christ, is subversive of it, and is not of God, 



636 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

(2) Infant Baptism does this ; for according to the teachings of the 
Discipline and the Presbyterian Confession of Faith, all infants are born 
depraved, the children of wrath, and they continue in this state until re- 
generated by the Spmt of God. While in this state they are unsaved, 

(3) Therefore the practice of Infant Baptism is subversive of the Church 
of Christ, and is not of God. 

Akg. XII. (1). Whatever practice reflects upon the honor, wisdom or 
faithfulness of Jesus Christ, or renders Him less faithful in his church 
than Moses was in his house, and makes one of the great ordinances of 
God's Word to lie more obscure in the New Testament than any law or - 
precept in the Old Testament, cannot he 0/ Qod. 

(2) To suppose that Infant Baptism is a Christian duty, is to reflect 
upon the honor, wisdom, and faithfulness of Jesus Christ ; for if it is an 
ordinance of Christ, and its supporters cannot find it commanded or ex- 
ampled, rewarded or punished in God's Word, it certainly makes Christ 
less faithful than Moses ; for Moses left not one of the least of all the ordi- 
nances or rites of the law, dark, or in the least difficult to be understood, 
whether an ordinance or not. But the Holy Spirit expressly declares 
that Christ was more faithful than Moses. 

Ergo. The institution of Infant Baptism (a law or example for which 
Pedobaptists confess they cannot find, and concerning its use, differ so 
generally among themselves) is no ordinance of Christ, and per conse- 
quence, cannot be of God. 

Aug. XIII. (1) Whatever theory opens the door to all the corruption? 
that characterize the great Apostacy, such as the adulterous union of the 
church and state, human priests, literal sacrifices, sacraments, etc., is 
manifestly opposed to the teachings of the Word of God, and subversive of 
the Church of Christ. 

(2) The theory upon which Pedobaptists introduce unregenerate children 
into the Church of Christ — i. e., the identity of the old Jewish common- 
wealth with the Christian Church, manifestly does open wide the door to 
chm'ch and state, a human priesthood, etc., 

(3) Therefore the theory by which Pedobaptists introduce unregenerate 
children into the Church of Christ, is opposed to the teachings of the 
Word of God, and subversive of the Church of Christ. 



Infant Baptism. 637 



DR. DITZLER'S FOURTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — You can see that I have felt 
secure when I have allowed the good Doctor to go on through 
his hour's speech and half hour, and letting it rest till now. 
As I have all the matter in evidence I want on the ±;ible ar- 
gument as yet, nothing is left to be done but to expose the 
chaffiness — the utter futility of his objections. We expected 
more work to do, were prepared for a far sterner duty than 
now devolves on us. The Doctor gave us fair warning, and 
we took the hint, and dove-tailed our work beyond the power 
of attack or disjointure. And now we have heard a third 
speech. Presuming he would do as well as he could, we will 
show now how feeble is the effort to evade our facts. 

He first charges that we did not define the word or idea of 
church. We read our speech because of its many historical 
points, etc., and read a most elaborate definition, and gave the 
completest analysis of the whole church we ever saw. He denies 
a plain fact to start with. That is failure. 

Next he errs on covenant, if we understood him. If he says 
the covenant between God and Abraham was not the consti- 
tution and foundation of the church we traced, and which 
Paul names, Heb. ii, 12; xii, 24 ; Eph. iii, 13, 14, under family, 
then let him explain what icas the constitution of it, and what 
the foundation of their faith when seeking a city that had 
foundations, Heb. x. 38, 39; xi, entire; xii, 1-3, 22-24, all one 
point. 

If he asserts that the Jewish Church "was founded on cir- 
cumcision," as they teach, let him 

1, Prove it by showing such declarations or texts as sus- 
tain it. 

2. Let him explain how the piety of such men as Abel, 
Enoch, Elijah, Samuel, Moses, Abraham, Daniel, the Hebrew 
children, and all God's Saints could be so exalted, yet no cov- 
enant of redemption^ no spirituality be in it? 



638 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. If God did not give them the means of a spiritual church 
for four thousand years, who was to blame ? If God could 
not, He was less than God. The incajpacity of the people cannot 
be pleaded, for the world has never seen purer men than those we 
have just named, and time would fail to tell of all, Heb. xi, 
32. If God would not, He alone was to blame if they did fail 
of duty and civilization, if he withheld the means. How can you 
meet infidelity with such a plea as to God's legislation ? 

4. Explain how it was the church existed long before this co^'- 
enan^ o/6?oO(i was made at Sinai? They are called a church 
in the Bible — Old and I^ew Testament, repeatedly, long be- 
fore that covenant was made, long before the Hebrews reached 
Sinai. 

5. Let him explain how it was that this very ordinance that 
he says was its foundation, in the absence of a word of proof, 
in the face of positive facts to the contrary, against all reason 
also — the foundation of the church was purely symbolic of the 
purity of heart. The day it was ordained. Gen. xvii, 11-14, 
it is called "a token," Paul calls if, quoting from Genesis 
xvii, 11, in Kom. iv, 11, "the sign of circumcision, a seal 
of the righteousness of faith." He had just told us, ch. ii, 29, 
that "circumcision is that of the heart in the Spirit." Hence 
the outward was " the sign of [this inivard~\ circumcision." It 
was "the putting away the body of the sins of the flesh," 
"made without hands," Col. ii, 11. This ordinance then was 
purely symbolic of purity of heart, yet administered to the 
parties in all cases, save Abraham, Tshmael, and Proselytes, at 
eight days old. Yet through all subsequent adult -life it sym- 
bolized purity of heart and separation fi'om sin and sinners. 

So baptism is symbolic, no more so than the other, and 
equally appropriate to infants. 

]N'ow if the church was not spiritual, not founded on Christ, 
why did its ordinance, on which you all assert it was founded, 
so pointedly symbolize purity? separation from sin and sin- 
ners? The word c/ii^rcA means in Hebrew, called', in Greek, 
called — in both, called out, called together. That is, separa- 
tion from sinners. Circumcision, the prominent ordinance 
means primarily cut off, separated. Thus it answers to the 
word church exactly. 



Infant Baptism. 639 

7. If the church was founded on circumcision, and only 
males were circumcised, how did they get into it? 

8. As not a soul was circumcised during the forty years of 
sojourn in the wilderness. Josh, v, 4-8, and yet they were 
called "the church," in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures 
constantly, and so denominated, Acts vii, 38. How did they 
all get in ? This doubly exposes the mass of absurdities in 
the gentleman's effort to answer. 

All I have to do is to meet his objections. My work of 
adamant stands — can't be shaken. 

But he says I said no one was a member of the Jewish 
church unless regenerated. He then urges that infants were 
not regenerate, hence not in the Jewish church by my posi- 
tion, ^o, no: I utter no such absurdities, and as the whole of 
my two speeches were written out and read, they will show 
that I was far from that. I said aliens, transgressors had to 
be converted, men who by wickedness had rebelled and be- 
come transgressors, sinners, they had to repent, be regener- 
ated, to get into the church. We maintain that such have to 
be converted to God, to become as fit for the church as are 
infants without conversion, " of such is the Kingdom of God." 
We must be converted to become as little children, Matt, 
xviii, 1-6; xix, 14. They inherit a depraved nature, feo you 
still have a depraved nature after conversion ; but through 
use of the means of grace you suppress it, put back the active 
development of sinful manifestations, and grace predominates. 
So, as they grow up, if they are taught, and believe in Jesus, 
they are transformed into complete Christians, actively by the 
power of grace upon their hearts, and are most valuable 
Christians when so developed. 

But the Doctor calls for the diferentia, the point of differ- 
ence between the church in the old and modern time. He 
insists that baptism is the essential diferentia. ^ow that 
is strange. We want you to remember^ — keep it in mind now, 
that we are discussing a great issue. We laid down the foun- 
dation of our faith on this subject. These are the best argu- 
ments (?) they can bring against our position. 

Kow, 1 Cor. X, 1, 2, tells him that they were all baptized. 



640 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

We put it in proof in our proposition just closed — Mode of 
Baptism — and so did he, that all Jews were baptized. We 
have baptism. Thej baptized far often er than we. So his 
diferentia falls to the ground. But it was not Christian bap- 
tism, '^ov is it so called in the ]N"ew Testament, that is man's 
term, not the Spirit's. 

But he says, " Where was the Lord's supper in the church, 
till in the Christian church ?" We reply 

1. It was ordained Exodus xii, 8-21, and ever perpetuated 
in the church. 

2. Church existence did not necessarily depend on it, but 
it was a privilege and a duty in common with the other du- 
ties in God's church. 

3. If you deny it was the Lord's Supper in our sense, 
though all agree it is our Lord's Supper, now simplified — for 
some purpose spiritually — yet if you deny all this, it destroys 
your cause here ; for your church teaches that the church existed 
long before Pentecost, long before the crucifixion in Christ's 
day, and yet never till after Pentecost, did the church cele- 
brate the supper as we now do. So your acknowledged 
church had baptism and the supper exactly as the Jews had 
it. Where now the diferentia, or great point of difference? 
You are crushed by your own objections. 

But another point we wish to notice, in this connection. 
There were as great changes between given periods of Jewish 
history as any the Doctor has attempted to notice between 
ancient Jewish Israel and the so called later Dispensation. In 
patriarchal ages till Abraham there was no circumcision. 

In the wilderness, circumcision was suspended forty years 
— ten years over the period of a generation. Here was a 
pointed change. From the exit of the church — those who "ate 
the same spiritual meat, drank of the same spiritual drink," 
who " drank of that Spiritual Rock that followed them ; and 
THAT Rock was Christ,'- I Cor. x. 2-3 — is that true ? — answer 
yourself, Doctor— w^e say it is — till they arrived at Mt. Sinai, 
no " law of commandments contained in ordinances," Ephe- 
sians ii, 15, 16; Col. ii. 14-17. They were "a shadow of 



Infant Baptism. 641 

things to come," pointed out Christ, and " the body (church), 
is of Christ," v. 17 ; existed then. It was " added" at Sinai, 
Gal. iii, 17,19; until Christ should come, and reformation 
take place — Heb. ix, 10. N"o carnal, fleshly law existed here 
then, yet constantly the word church occurs. 

They had only two ordinances — -just as we now have — Paschal 
feast, i. e. Lord's Supper and baptism. We have those two. 
They had no ^'law of commandments contained in ordinances." 
A Prophet emphasises the fact that in the day Jehovah led them 
out of Egypt he spoke not of those things — uttered nothing 
about the offerings, circumcision, etc. Now, all this routine of 
ceremonies came in — they were " added till the Seed [Christ] 
should come. " When he came and died, they " fell away" — 
were the bond-woman — sold those who trusted in them into 
bondage — so the law of them and the adherents of ritualism 
were all "cast out," Gal. iv, 30; Rom. xi, 17, 19, 20,21, 
and not permitted a place with the son of the free woman, the 
Covenant of Salvation. We repeat, then, if all these things 
came into the Church and did not destro}^ it, or result in 1, 
destroying the Church ; 2, in organizing a new one ; 3, with 
change of membership and real design of God — viz : the sal- 
vation of man — how much less will the removing of these 
rites and the Sinaitic law ordaining them, destroy the Church? 
They came in — they went out. They were surely a parenthe- 
sis — not an essential element of God's government. Circum- 
cision existed before Moses. It served its object of outwardly 
marking the difference between God's people and heathen — 
baptism sufiiciently symbolized inward purity, and this rite, 
while it did that, marked a distinction between Jews and Gen- 
tiles as such, and hence it was condemned to be taken out of 
the way, it was a mark of enmity. Hence it had served its 
day, fell away. 

5. In the next place, look at the difference between John's 
ministry and that of Jesus. One baptizes "with water. ' The 
other " baptizes with the Spirit." The one baptizes "into re- 
pentance." The other baptizes — thoroughly purging his 
floor — by its purifying power as fire, he separates the chaff 

from the wheat — removes sin from the heart. Though one 
40 



642 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

baptized that Christ might be made manifest to Israel, John i, 
31, the other baptized with the Spirit and fire, and the 
anointing remained in them — "a washing of regeneration.'' 

We see then that these variations, and changes did not re- 
sult in a new church. Nay, 

6. A grander change of outward circumstances takes place, 
for which the great facts just given took place. The Gentiles 
are to come in. Law for this was given before Christ ascended, 
Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. But not till from eight to ten years was 
it carried out. Baptists hold the church existed long before 
the crucifixion. Well, here is a new law made of vast pro- 
portions brief as are its words. "All Nations !" — how search- 
ing ! Disciple all nations! What a wonderful revolution 
that will make in the economy of the Church. It is 
not carried out till from eight to ten years after Pentecost. 
It had been matter of prophecy for long, long centuries, as we 
showed in our first two Addresses. Yet did the great new 
law, not executed for long years, result in a new church ? All 
say no — ^it would upset us all then, and destroy all our theo- 
ries. Yes it would, of course. If, then, all these other changes in 
mere externals, mere questions of days, rites or ritualistic ser- 
vices, abridgments, enlargements, questions of outward econ- 
omy, did not create new churches each time, why should this 
one change do it ? 

7. How can Baptists get around Paul's arguments, put in a 

" nutshell," in Romans ii, 28, 29 ! By your position these 

outward rites made the Jew — made his Church. Paul says it 

is false ; for he says — " He is not a Jew who is one outwardly, 

neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh, 

but he is a Jew, who is one inwardly ; and circumcision is 

that of the heart, in the spirit or by the spirit." In the very 

face of apostolic assertion, you teach, you assert, you declare 

from the house-tops, that it was all outward in the flesh. Hear 

Carson — and A. Campbell asserts the same — 

"The very constitution of the Jewish church recognized the membership 
of carnal persons. It did not make the distinction between those bom of 
the flesh, and those born of the Spirit. There was no law to exclude the 
Pharisees or even the Sadducees, from the Jewish church. ... It was 
no corruption of the constitution of the church to contain them." p. 233. 



Infant Baptism. 643 

We showed where there was provision to exclude them — 
cut them off — gave cases where it was carried out often — at 
times when the officers in the church did not execute the laws, 
God did, and cut them off by thousands, because of unbelief — 
Heb. iii. 16-17-19; x. 6, and we multiplied Scriptures as to the 
distinction of Israel after the flesh, now carnal Israel and spir- 
itual Israel — that all are not Israel that are of Israel, Rom. ix. 6, 
Paul asks "who are Israelites to whom pertaineth the adop- 
tion, and the glory and the covenants, and the giving of the 
law. . . . and the promises — they are not all Israelites who 
are of Israel. I^either because they are children of Abraham 
are they all children. . . . That is [says he ] they which are 
the children of the flesh, those are not the children of God. 
Dr. Graves and Baptists say that is not so! ! They are all 
flesh. Their law required nothing better. True, Deut. vi. 
4, 5 quoted by Christ, Mark xii. 29-33, tells us all that to 
be a true Jew was to love God with all the heart, with 
the soul, mind, strength;" still Dr. Graves says, that amounts 
to nothing" — it is all flesh. 

David prayed Ps. xli. 1, 10, "wash me thoroughly from mine 
iniquities, and cleanse me from my sins." 0, that all means 
nothing — it is all flesh. Isaiah i. 11,16; iv. 4; xliv. 3; 
Ezek. xxxvi. 25, 26, etc., etc. — all quoted or referred to by us 
in our first speech, all tell the same truth, and by the wounds 
of Christ they we're all healed — Is. liii. 1, 10. It is all flesh — 
no requirement of new birth there — no such thought!! It 
infidelity wants a better stand-point than that, where can it be 
found ? 

0, but bad men were in the church then. Yes, in its 
organized form — in its congregation and partook its ordinances. 

Is this a proof of your position ? Does that prove that it 
was not a spiritual church ? You know it does not. You are 
too well posted not to know that that is no argument at all. 
But it is a favorite point — one of their best points in their 
own estimation. So we will expose that also, as we can and 
will expose every objection he can offer. 

1. Then he knows that bad men crept into the organized 
form of the church (1) in Paul's day, Gal. i. 4, (2)in Jude's day 



644 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

V. 4, 9 (3) in Peter's day, 2Peter ii. 1, 9, 12-15,(4) in John's day 
Epistle of John verses 9, 11. Then by your argument there 
was no spiritual church then. 

2. In your church to-day — in all our churches, in the sense 
we now use the term — as organized and officered bodies, bad 
men are in, and often just as many as were at times found in 
the Jewish " congregations of the righteous." So you prove 
too much again. 

3. As now, so then, laws did exist — those to which Christ 
poiiitedly alludes, and presumes all who heard him to be 
familiar with them, when he tells us just how to weed out 
men out of the church. Matt, xviii. 17. If our officers in the 
church neglect duty; if the majority of bad men get in and 
suppress good discipline, and encourage carnal security, it is 
no more than the texts we just gave prove, existed in John's, 
Jude's, Paul's and Peter's day. We have this treasure in 
earthen vessels, and to man is committed the duty, under 
God, of executing his laws. 

We have answered, more than answered, and utterly over- 
turned and exterminated the whole platform of the Doctor^ 
sapped his foundation and exploded his whole theory. Oui 
arguments stand as firm as the everlasting hills — unshaken — 
unscathed, their pyramids of moral grandeur and strength 
resting on God's eternal truth. 

He introduces analogy now, after such bitter, invective, 
against all arguments of analogy. Look at it. We have not 
brought in a single argument founded on analogy yet — not 
one. But the Doctor charged that we relied on analogy be- 
tween the Jewish and so-called Christian Church. We did 
no such thing. No analogy came up. We want no analogy. 
It is oneness we proved. Analogy implies two separate things. 
That is the very thing we have opposed all the time. The 
church is one. It is a unity. It is one in its Founder, one in 
faith. Rom. iv. 3-5, 11, 12, 16 ; Eph. iv. 5, 6— we " walk in 
the steps of that faith of our Father Abraham," " who is 
the Father of us all — iv. 12, 16 — one in the Spirit, one in 
principle. 



Infant Baptism. 645 

^ow, when a man of the Doctor's strength has to eo mis- 
state our positions, our views, get up so many trivial objections, 
does it not argue the weakness and desperation of his cause? 

But he says, in his "analogy," a change in the Constitution 
of Missouri, does so and so. It does not imply any change in 
citizenship. If it does such a thing, it must be clearly, defi- 
nitely stated — the clause pointed out, and fairly understood. 
You can never disfranchise people of long established and 
recognized rights, by loose, vague inference, or construction 
of laws, especially those made where that matter was not at 
all under consideration, nor in the legislator's mind. Yet he 
relies wholly on just such constructions of the merest inci- 
dental occurrences and remarks in apostolic history. But does 
a change in Missouri's Constitution make a de novo State ? 
Surely it does not. It is the same State yet. So his own illustra- 
tion is directly against him. 

He says Carson did not call it church. He does call it 
church over and again, as well as Bunyan, and all Baptist 
writers. On pages 233,^34, Dr. Carson repeatedly uses such 
phrases as "the church," "Jewish church," "the church of 
Israel," " was the church into which its members were born, 
the same with the church whose members must be born from 
above ! " You call it as A. Campbell — " commonwealth," we 
presume. Paul calls the church, in his day, " the common- 
wealth of Israel" — Eph. ii. 12, and G-entiles were not in it, 
but " aliens " from it, by being without Christ — having no 

hope. 

He berates Bishops, Presidents, etc., generally, but as it has 
nothing to do with our question, we let it all pass. 

Limborch, etc., object that there is no record or proof that 
the "Apostles ever baptized an infant." Does that prove any- 
thing ? He knows it does not- We will wait and see if he 
regards it as of any force, and if he does, it will go down with 
the same crash with which all else he has advanced goes down 
before the grand battle-axe of truth. 

The Doctor gets wild, and charges that I am liable to im- 
peachment on the Discipline 1 N'ot much. ISTot a word of our 



646 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Discipline do I reject. I do not subscribe to some applications 
or interpretations of fact and texts of Scripture attempted to 
be made bj the framers of the Ritual, but he knows that is left 
perfectly to our liberty of conscience, not meant as a rule of 
faith at all. The note tells how it may be read, used, or "some 
other suitable address." We go by the Discipline, not by the 
ritual. 

Finally, the Doctor elaborated learnedly the Greek word 
for church, ecclesia. But all that is answered by the fact 

1. That this word in the E'ew Testament is taken directly 
from the Greek Old Testament, as he too well knows, whose 
Greek Old Testament he knows the Apostles habitually used, 
and not from classic Greek. The Apostles never went to 
Athens and Greece to preach where classic Greek would be 
used, and the use of it he points out in Athens for ten years 
to thirteen after Pentecost. It is a shameful imposition to 
pretend to go to an Athenian assembly to interpret a plain 
Bible word in use fifteen hundred years by the Jews, and used 
by Jews to Jews, as it is in the New Testament. Where is 
any classic Greek that uses church as Christ does, Matt. xvi. 
18, the first time it occurs in the ITew Testament, "I will 
build, ipikodomceso), I will establish, confirm, my church?" or 
in Eph. ii, 21, 22; CoL i, 18, 24; 1 Tim. iii, 15; Acts xx, 
28, 29 ? 

2. The Apostles were Galileans, used the Syriae as their 

native tongue, and knew nothing of Greek, save the Bible 
Greek, as we now study it. James uses the word "syna- 
gogue," ii, 2, in same sense, as well as Paul frequently, and 
Christ, "where two or three are gathered together " in my 
name." The words "gathered together " is the verb of syn- 
agogue, which has essentially the same import exactly as to 
the outward gathering assembly' or organized church that 
ecclesia has. They are repeatedly interchanged in the Bible, 
in the same sentences and verses. We gave examples in our 
first speech. So we saw the Apocryphal writings used the 
word church exactly as the l!^ew Testament uses it. It is used 
for God's whole church on earth, at times. It is used for 
a simple congregation at times, just as we now do. It is used 



Infant Baptism. 647 

for the whole of God's people in heaven and earth in all ages, 
all times. Heb. xii, 24. 

We have answered every point, every objection. We have 
crushed every position he took that antagonized ours. We 
showed there 1. Was a church. 2. It was spiritual. 3. It 
had all proper laws for discipline as we have now — those of 
the New Testament being every one the same as in the Old. 
4. We showed infants were in the church by the command, 
will and legislation of God. 5. We showed they received 
baptism and circumcision, both symbolic ordinances. That 
6. This church is still God's church. He must 1. Find chap- 
ter and verse where it was definitely, clearly destroyed. 2. 
Where a new church came into its place. 3. This new church, 
so radically different from the old, as that it legislates the 
infants out of its entire pale. 4. Show where our duty to 
little children is explained; how performed outside of the 
church. These things he has not done, he never will do it. — 
\_Time out 



643 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FOURTH REPLY. 

Replication. 

Mr. President : — This is the second day of the discussion 
of this simple proposition. Is Infant Baptism, as practiced by 
the M. E Church, authorized by the word of God ? 

IN'ow my opponent has declared and put it on the printed 
page, that the commission of Christ to his Apostles is the only 
law we have to baptize any one. That commission is found 
in the New Testament. He will scarcely deny this, though 
he could as easily and as plausibly if he should see fit, as he 
denies that the Christian church and Christian baptism are 
iTew Testament institutions. 

This being the only law in the Bible for the baptism of in- 
fants, if they are to be baptized, is it strange then that I should 
call upon him and urge him to come to it, and let us settle the 
question by it. If it is the oyily law for baptizing infants, why 
go back four thousand years into the mists and togs of obso- 
lete dispensations and Judaism for a gospel institution ? 
That's why I have so stoutly objected to spending days inves- 
tigating the Old Testament when every Bible reader knows, 
what Eld. Ditzler declares, that there is not a law in the Old 
Testament for infant baptism or an example of it ; and conse- 
quently, no authority whatever to justify its practice in the 
Gospel dispensation. 

But this. Sir, is the second day, and has he even read or so 
much as referred to, that only law in the Bible for the baptism 
of infants? Not once! Has he brought forward one pre- 
cept in the ISTew Testament that he even claims authorizes it ? 
Not one. Has he produced an example in the New Testament 
of the baptism of an infant? Not one. Has he found a prom- 
ise to any parent who would baptize his infant, or a threaten- 
ing if he failed to do so? Not one. But he complains be- 
cause I am unwilling for him to have the whole range of the 



Infant Baptism. 649 

Old Testament, and he quotes scripture to prove that it, as 
well as the IN'ew, is "profitable for doctrine." Very well, he has 
been on it for four speeches, and has he found it profitable to 
his cause ? Has he found a command in it for Infant Baptism ? 
Not one. An example of it? !N"ot one. Has he produced a 
prophecy that one day it would be practiced in the church under 
the Gospel dispensation ? ]^ot one. He certainly has not 
found it profitable to his baptism. "What has he been trying 
to do all this time ? He tells us, to establish the theorj^, that 
there was a true gospel Church in the Old Testament, but he 
will not specifically tell us what it is ; sometimes it is " all the 
saved by grace ; sometimes it seems to be "the family of Abra- 
ham," then again the "Church in the wilderness;" the Jewish 
nation and kingdom of Israel, "the remnant," etc., and this is 
his last trial, which he has just declared to be "the corri'pletest 
analysis of the whole church we [he] ever saw." I quote the 
whole paragraph, word and point of it: 

3. " He utterly ignores the point we made, viz : that the church is one, 
covering all ages:, all classes, all dispensations. Hence the death of this or 
that member affects not its existence. It exists in Heaven and earth, in 
all 2i.geB, Qom^iosed of all God? s people, as we showed. Heb. xii, 24; Eph. 
iii, 13, 14. Hence, if all the mejnb'-.rs on earth were to perish, the Church of 
God lives on in its membership on high — its Head — Jesus Christ, and its 
saving principles. The moment any number of beings embraced Christ, 
the Head, received the Spirit, they are a part of th". one church.''^ 

]S"ow I appeal to all, is this the fanGiful, mythical unsubstan- 
tial thing which he has been confusing the minds of his peo- 
ple with the past day, the organization, the body we have 
under discussion ? Is it the body which the xxv art. of his Disci- 
pline defines as the church ? Eld. Ditzler knows that it is not. 
He knows that this family of God in Heaven has no specific 
organization, and his own living Bishop Doggett, tells us that 
without that specific organization delineated in the New Tes- 
tament, there can be no church, though any number of Chris- 
tians may compose the body. This mystical family in Heaven 
has no laws, no ordinances, without which there can be no 
Church of Christ. To this church, no living infant ever be- 
longed. What does he mean by such a definition ? Can 
it be that he believes he can impose it upon this people ? 



650 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

But those passages he quotes do not refer to a church in 
Heaven. Eom. xii. 22, refers to the visible organized church 
of living beings on this earth. So says A. Clarke. So Dean 
Alford. Eph. iii, 14, 15, does not in the slightest manner 
refer to the Christian Church, or to any church anywhere, but 
states that the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Father 
of all in heaven and on earth — of angels as well as men — 
that all his intelligent creatures belong to his family and 
named from and by Him, and therefore to this All Father the 
Apostle bends his knees and prays for the brethren at Ephesus. 
Now, if he claims that there is a church in heaven, where 
God is, though it has nothing to do with this question, I shall 
urge him to find a Scripture that teaches it. These, manifestly, 
do not. This sort of controversy is not discussing this ques- 
tion. I do think I have cause to complain that my opponent 
has spent one day and almost half of another, in discussing 
issues not in debate, and now I think I have cause to protest 
against his course. He has not defined, and he persistently 
refuses to define what he means by a visible Church of 
Christ, nor will he publicly endorse the definition of "Church" 
in the Articles of his Discipline. What does this mean? He 
says infants were circumcised under the Old Testament. This 
statement is not logically true. It is an universal affirmative, 
and means all infants under the Old Testament were circum- 
cised, but this is not the case, but very few, a*nd they of the 
family of Abraham, were circumcised, and not all of Abra- 
ham's own children, but only his male infants were circum- 
cised. What possible connection has this rite with water 

baptism under the Christian Church? If any, it can only 
apply to the male infants of some parent or parents who stand 
in the same relation to his children as Abraham did to his. 
Circumcision was applicable, and did mean something to 
Abraham's infants, but to the children of no other family, 
while Christian baptism is inapplicable to the infants of any 
one, because its design cannot be answered. Circumcision 
was a sign to the male child, that he was a descendant of 
Abraham, and entitled it to all the temporal blessings secured 
in the covenant, of which it was the token, and it was typical, 
prefiguring to him the great spiritual fact of the necessity of 



Infant Baptism., 651 

a circumcised heart, for him to be a spiritual child of Abra- 
ham, and enjoy with Abraham all the blessings secured to 
him in that covenant. There is no conceivable connec- 
tion or relation between circumcision and baptism, the former 
belonged exclusively to the male children of one man, and 
secured to them temporal distinctions and blessings only, 
while baptism is a profession of a personal saving faith in 
Christ, and of any one, and of any family under the whole 
heaven, and introduces into the visible church. The former 
rite every male inherited by reason of birth ; the condition of 
the latter is personal faith in Christ. 

He says that besides the ordinance of circumcision, the 
church in the Old Testament had a baptism! If it had, it is 
evidently not the church he is talking about, for that had no 
ritual, he tells us ! How can such a disputant be answered? 
Eld. Ditzler declares that the covenant God made with Abra- 
ham was the constitution o^ndi foundation of the church he con- 
tends for. Then there Was no church before this covenant, 
or there was a building before there was a foundation for it to 
rest on ! But were there not thousands of pious persons that 
were saved by grace from Abel to Abraham ? Then without 
casting reflection upon God's government, there can be thou- 
sands of Christians in the world during two thousand years 
without there being a church in any sense ! But during these 
two thousand years, thousands of the saved by grace died, and 
went to heaven, according to Eld. Ditzler's belief, and yet 
there was no church in heaven either, for the first two thou- 
sand years of the earth's history ! Well, if this be so, then 
there is little need for him to call on us to reconcile it with 
God's government, that he should not see fit to call such an 
organization as a church into existence until the expiration of 
one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight years more, when 
His own Son should set it up for his own purpose. This is a fatal 
position to my opponent's theory, and he has made a still 
more fatal one, which I will notice in its proper connection. 

I wish to gratify him to the utmost by way of explaining 
the Word of God to him, and others may be benefitted. He 
says : — 

"Next he errs on covenant, if we understood him. If he says the cove- 



652 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

nant between God and Abraham was not the constitution and foundation 
of the church we traced, and which Paul names, Heb. ii, 12 ; xii, 24 ; 
Eph. iii, 13, 14, under family, then let him explain Avhat was the constitu- 
tion of it, and xohat the foundation of then faith when seeking a city that 
had foundations, Heb. x, 38, 39 ; xi entire ; xii, 1-3, 22-24, aZ^ we point." 

Well, we did say that if the covenant God made with Abra- 
ham, recorded iu Gen. xi, and sealed with a token, Gen., xvii, 
was the covenant of grace or redemption, and did call a church 
into being, as my friend declares, then was the covenant of 
redemjDtlon made with an idolater as its head, since all itslirst 
members were idolaters, and no infant in it at that ! 1 was 
showing the absurdity, not to say profanity of my opponent's 
position. I will now tell him that Heb. ii, 12, the prophecy of 
David concerning Christ, is a prophecy that could not be fulfilled 
until Christ should come, for his hands and his feet were never 
before pierced, and never before His advent did He sing a 
hymn of praise in the midst of his church, but the fact of the 
fulfillment is put on record by the evangelists — i. e., that after 
the supper he sang a hymn with his disciples, and went out to 
the Mount of Olives. Heb. xii. 24. I have shown and proved b}^ 
Adam Clarke and Dean Alford, and the ripest criticism of the 
age, that it refers to the visible church of the gospel dispensation 
as opposed to the politico-religious organization, the Jewish 
Church, which Eld Ditzler claims as the true church, identical 
with his own. 

Eph. iii. 14. has not the most distant reference to any church 
above or below, only declares that God is the common Father 
of all the holy unfallen intelligences, of all angels as well as 
of Jesus Christ, Heb. x. 38, and xi, and neither mentions nor re- 
fers to any church, above or below ; nor does Heb. xiii. 1-3, 22, 
25, as I have fully shown. Thus have I disposed of his 2^'^^of 
texts, and while I wait for more, or a representative of these, I 
will briefly notice some assertions and requests he made at the 
close of his speech yesterday evening. 

1. He affirmed that he had met every point I have made 
against this theory ! Those who heard and those wdio may 
read the record must decide this. Has he so much as defined 
the visible church which we are discussing ? He has not, but 
affirms that all the saved constitute the church. Has he en- 



Infant Baptism. 653 

dorsed the definition of his Discipline even ? Has he 
informed us when and with whom the Covenant ot KedemDtion 

ji. 

was first made ? 

2. He says, I " have not met a single point, no, not one 
point." Others must and will judge of this. I proved that 
before the coming of Christ there was no real Church, 
and consequently it could have no ordinances or infants. I 
proved by Paul' s declaration, Gal. 4, and Heb. xii, that the 
Jewish nation was only a type or figure of the visible kingdom 
of Christ, and this, be it known to all men, is all that Carson, 
Gale, or any Baptist known or heard of by us ever admitted. 
Whoever says Carson or Gale taught that there was a visible 
Christian church before Christ's advent, grossly misrepresents 
them. 

He calls upon me to answer clearly six questions. See how 
cheerfully I do it at the earliest moment, hoping my example 
will provoke him to pay some attention to my requests. 

1. " When was the old church done away?" 
It never had an existence to be done away. 

2. "Reconcile this with God's government." 

No reconciliation is needed except according to the doctrines 
taught in the Methodist Standards of belief that God cannot 
save men, not even infants in the ordinary way without a vis- 
ible church and the ordinance of baptism. But my opponent 
now admits there was no church before the days of Abraham, 
i. e., for nearly 2000 years, and I will ask him how he can re- 
concile this fact with God's government ! And he says 

3. "Reconcile itwith the prophecies of perpetuity everywhere 
given to that church, quoted by us in our two opening speeches; 
he has not dared attempt it." 

He quoted many passages in his two speeches, that applied 
to various and different persons and things, but not one pas- 
sage prophesying perpetuity to any thing in the Old Testa- 
ment which he claims to be a visible church. If he claims 
that, he has the issue made up. Let him when he rises, pre- 
sent the passages and 1 will at once notice them. Is not this 
fair? 



654 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

4. "Let "him show when and where the new church was 
organized." ... 

Aye ! this is how he attempts to shift the burden of proof. 
It is not incumheat on me, but on him to show where the 
church of Christ was organized in which unconscious infants 
were entitled to baptism and membership. I have all along 
denied that there was any new church; it would be admitting 
that there was an old one under Judaism. I can and shall 
tell him by and by when the Gospel dispensation commenced 
Mark i. 1. I shall ere long tell him when the kingdom of 
heaven long prophesied of, was "at hand." I shall ere long 
tell him when the law and the Prophets ended, and the king- 
dom of heaven was preached. I shall presently tell him 
when the rite of Christian baptism was first instituted, and 
there and then we must look for the legal subjects of it. 

" 5. Let him reconcile that with all the texts we quoted 
against its possibility, and as Matt. xxi. 43, e. g." 

He can quote no passage against the possibility of Christ's 
setting up his church and kingdom as David prophesied, as 
we will see in due time. 

WAS THERE A CHURCH 11^ THE FAMILY OF ISAAC. 

If one was ever constituted or was in existence in his family, 
it must have been when God renewed the covenant with him. 
Read Gen. xxvi, 2. At this time his family consisted of his 
wife Rebecca, an ambitious and intriguing w^oman, and his two 
sons, EsaD, the wild man, and Jacob, the suppbnter. So far 
as the record informs us, Isaac must have been the only truly 
righteous or justified one — Esau was profane, and Jacob an 
intriguer and a falsifier. At least this is all we need to know. 
There were no infant children in Isaac's Church, except 
those among his idolatrous servants. 

WAS THERE A CHURCH IN JACOB's FAMILY ? 

If any, it must have been when the covenant of his father, 
Abraham, was confirmed unto him for a law, to a thous- 
and generations. This is recorded in Gen. xxviii. 

Jacob was evidently an unconverted man — at this time — 
and, unfortunately for the theory, he was unmarried, and with- 



Infant Baptism. 655 

out slaves, so that he was the only member of it ! If there 
was no church in the family of Abraham, it is certainly useless 
to look for one in the families of Isaac and of Jacob. 

The Covenant of Circumcision, while it marked the fami- 
lies, constituted no church out of the family of Abraham, 
Isaac or Jacob. If, therefore, there was no church under the 
Old Dispensation, where is the ground for an analogy, or for 
even an inference to the J^ew ? 

The great Peter Edwards, the renowned champion of infant 
baptism, says : 

" Sure enough there can be no analogy between a church and no church, 
and consequently no argument can be drawn in favor of infant member- 
ship from a church that never was, to a church that now exists." — Candid 
Reasons, p. 99. 

Follow the history of Abraham's descendants from the day 
he circumcised Isaac, down to Egypt, and thence to Mount 
Sinai, in Arabia, and you can find not the shadow of either a 
nation or a church, but 2^, family only. 

So much for the church under the first three dispensations, 
Eden, Antediluvian and Patriarchal. I cannot see how any 
candid Christian man can believe that during the first twenty- 
five hundred and fifteen years of the world's history that 
there existed for one day a visible organization of regenerate 
persons and regenerated infants that anwers to the definition 
of a Christian church as laid down in the Methodist Disci- 
pline. Catholicism has its myths as certainly as did the reli- 
gions of Greece and Rome, and this Christian church, with 
regenerate or unregenerate infants incorporated in it by the 
Covenant of Grace, is the grand and astounding myth of 
Protestantism. This myth was invented for the want of a 
better support and ground for infant baptism. 

Mark, as I have said before, I do not deny that there were 
hundreds and thousands of holy men and women who ''feared 
God and wrought righteousness" in every age of the world, 
" for God hath not left himself without witnesses " of his 
goodness, faith and power, but I do deny that it was his will 
or intent that they should be organized into a visible church. 
There could be thousands of Christians in any nation and yet 



6^6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



D 



be no church, as there were once five hundred Masons 



in San Francisco before there was one ors^anized lodo;e. Ten 
thousand Masons will be present at Philadelphia on the fourth 
of July, 1876, but no intelligent Mason would think of call- 
ing these a lodge, and claim that during the month of July 
there was a lodge of ten thousand Masons in Philadelphia. 
To constitute a lodge it requires, as it does a church, organiza- 
tion, with fixed laws and powers, etc. 

The church of God, Eld. Ditzler will himself admit, is an 
institution — he calls it an institution — and. he knows that an 
institution cannot be originated without express and specific 
appointment by the authority that has the power to appoint 
or institute, as circumcision, as the passover, as the ceremo- 
nial law, as Christian Baptism and the Lord's Supper. 

Dr. Goodman, when writing against Popery, says : 

" The term institution implies a setting up de novo, or appointing that 
to become a duty which was not knowable, or at least not known to be 
so before it became so appointed." — Pres. vs. Popery, p. 7. 

And Dr. Sherlock, when writing against Popery, says : 

" I will never admit of a mere consequence to prove an institution, 
which must be delivered in plain terms, as all laws ought to be." — Pres. 
vs. Popery, vol. ii. Am. Ed. p. 23. 

So I urge these laws against Pedobaptisra. I now call upon 
Eld. Ditzler to state clearly and explicit}^ the law or specific 
command that originated his church that he says existed 
thousands of years before circumcision or bestial sacrifices. I 
press him for his precept originating it then or before the 
incarnation. And as he goes out to hunt for the law, I will 
furnish him with a few more of those logical arguments from 
which he has heretofore hidden as from missiles of death. 

Refutation. 

Arg. XIV. (1) That practice which opens a door to any human tradi- 
tions, additions, changes, or innovations in God's worship, is a sin and an 
abomination in the sight of God, and a curse to the world. 

" The principle," says Dr. Owen, " that the church hath power to insti- 
tute and appoint any thing or ceremony belonging to the worship of God, 
either as to matter or to manner beyond the orderly observance of such 
circumstances as necessarily attend such ordinances as Christ himself has 



Infant Baptism. 657 

instituted, lies at tlie bottom of all the horrible superdtitions and wars thai 
have for so long a season spread themselves over the face of the Christiaji 
world." 

(2) But the practice of Infant Sprinkling does open a wide door to any 
human tradition, addition or change in the ordinances of God; for, 
though it was never instituted by Christ, the Romanists, who made the 
change, declare and opened the door to, the use of the sign of the cross, 
exorcism, salt, chrism, God-fathers and God-mothers, and sponsors, the 
consecration of the baptismal waters, confirmation, the offering of 
prayers and oblations for the dead, the mass, extreme miction, and a host 
of other innovations. 

Not even do Catholics, but Protestants, even Prof. Stuart himself, who 
stood for many years at the head of all the Pedobaptist writers in America, 
admits that it was instituted by man, and he defends it upon the ground 
that the church has a right to change the non-essential ordinances, and 
make them conform to man's convenience ! ! How wide this open door ! 
for the right to add one implies the right to add or change a thousand ! 
There remains no bar to any innovation a corrupt church might choose to 
introduce. 

(3) Therefore the institution of Infant Baptism is a tradition of man, a 
sin, and an abomination in the sight of God, and a curse to the church 
and the world. 

A curse to the church because it corrupts and carnalizes it, and to the 
world because it teaches men to believe and trust in the traditions of men 
rather than in the commands and ordinances of God. 

Arg. XV. (1) The Lord purposed only the saved to be added to the 
church, and to add the unsaved is to contravene his expressed purpose — 
'' and the Lord added to the church daUy the saved." Tons soudzomenous, 
those who are saved, Acts ii. 47. 

(2) But Uving infants and unbelieving children are not saved. 

(3) Therefore to add them to the church is to contravene the express 
purpose of God. 

Arg. XVI. (1) Whatever practice inverts the order of the Divine Law 
of baptism is a perversion of the Divine Law, and is, therefore, sinful. 

(2) Infant Baptism does this by practically putting — in direct opposition 
to what the commission requires — baptism before faith or teaching. 

(3) Therefore Infant Baptism is a perversion of the Divine Law.— [^tm« 
Out.] 

41 



658 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — As the practices of a perrnl- 
throw light on the difficult passages we find in their writ- 
ings, so here, in the well known practices and customs of the 
Jews, we will find a further means of understanding the com- 
mission. The following facts are admitted by our opponents 
— that the Jews practiced Infant Baptism on the children of 
all proselytes at the beginning of the third century. Thus 
Dr. Judd, Baptist, copied by Dr. Graves, says : "Independ- 
ently of the scriptures we have evid^^nce that ought to satisfy 
us, that, at the commencement of the third century, the cus- 
tom of proselyte baptism was practiced among the Jews," p. 
243, Appendix. The Jerusalem Talmud Judd quotes, 220 A. 
B., mentions it, and seems to agree that Roman soldiers 
received it during the time of the second temple; 243. To 
these points M. Stuart agrees, in substance, p. 122-20. 

But while our opponents are compelled to put it thus early 
they admit, as Judd does, the force of facts and testimony 
that puts it immediately after the era of the birth of Christ. 
On the contrary, all the most learned in Jewish literature, 
Lightfoot, Seldon, BuxtorfF, Schsetgennius, Danz, Wetstein, 
Witsius, KuinoB, Beza, etc., believe it was practiced long be- 
fore the apostolic age. Ernesti, Bauer, Paulus, M. Stuart, etc., 
think it came in after the apostolic times. The proofs favor- 
ing this, are, first, "The original institution of admitting Jews 
to the covenat, and strangers to the same, prescribed no other 
rite than that of circumcision;" Judd, 243. Second, no ac- 
count of any other is found in the Old Testament; none in 
the Apocrypha, 'New Testament, Targums of Onkelos, Jona- 
than, etc., Judd, 243. 

M. Stuart urges that the silence of Onkelos, Philo, Josephus 
and Jonathan, is proof it did not exist before Christ; p. 128 ; 
but admits it existed in the second century, if we may credit 



Infant Baptism. 659 

the Jerusalem Talmud; p. 128. See Judd on the same — si- 
lence of these men; p. 241. 

Here, as so often on the baptismal question, the matter is 
superficially examined. With the Bible open before us, we 
know that the above objections are utterly untrue. In 2. 
Chron. xxx, 15, 27, the people did not come with due prepara- 
tion, though circumcised; and it was against the law to take 
the passover thus. The 'New Testament shows clearly, as 
well as Lev. xi : 25,36; Wum. xix: 9, 18; Lev. xv. and xvi, 
entire, that the unclean would not dare to approach the pass- 
over, or come into the assembly of the people. Psalms xxiv : 
"Who shall stand in the congregation of the upright? The 
clean of hands," etc., is based on that fact. 

Exodas xxii : 47. All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. 

48. And when a stranger shall sojourn with thee, and will keep the pass- 
over to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come 
near and keep it : and he shall be as one that is born in the land ; for no 
iincircumcised person shall eat thereof. 

49. One law shall be to him that is homeborn, and unto the stranger that 
sojourneth among you. 

Num. ix : 14. And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep 
the passover unto the Lord ; according to the ordinance of the passover, 
and according to the manner thereof, so shall he do : ye shall have one 
ordinance, both for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land. 

Num. XV : 15. One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, 
and also for the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance forever 
in your generations: as ye are, so shall the stranger be, before the Lord. 

One law and one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that so- 
journeth with you. 

It is here laid down that native Jews and proselytes shall 
be under one law. That was settled from the beginning of 
the exodus of the Jews. That "according to the manner 
thereof," all alike were to be qualified to take it. No unclean, 
unbaptized Jew, could take it according to law. Hence, of 
all absurdities, it is the most absurd to suppose that the Jews 
would allow Gentiles to take the passover, or come into the 
assemblies of the righteous, unbaptized. And this enables 
us to understand the teachings of John iii : 5. Christ is sim- 
ply declaring a well known fact there; not a new law of His 
kingdom. Mcodemus, you Jews hold — we all hold that every 



66 o The Great Carrollton Debate. . 

one must be baptized who enters our church, as well as pro- 
fess faith in God as a pure Spirit, by which he becomes as one 
new born, "born of the Spirit." See Lightfoot. He had to 
be born of water and the Spirit to be entitled to entrance, as a 
proselyte or Gentile. Chris-t simply relates an existing fact. 
In vei^e 10, he shows that he is talking of matters that ought 
to be familiar to the Rabbi. "Art thou a master, {ho Didaskilos) 
the teacher of Israel, and knowest not these things ?" The or- 
dinary baptism was familiar, but the Rabbi had lost sight of 
the spiritual. Men were born of circumcision ; received the rite 
of it ; born of water, received the rite of baptism. 

John i. 25 ' 'Why baptizest thou, then, if thou be not that Christ, nor 
Elias, neither that prophet?" 

That is, when such an onecomes, and baptizes, he. is making 

proselytes. It is certain, then, that Jews required all converts, to 

always baptize their children of all ages. Hence the. Jerusalem 

Mishna, which existed long before Christ, though not reduced to 

the written form till later, names that if a girl, born of heathen 

parents, be made a proselyte after she be three years and a day 

old, then she is not to have such and such privileges there 

mentioned. The Babylon edition says r "If she be made a 

proselyte before that age, she shall have the said privileges;'" 

Wahl i. 10. The later Gerna, in commenting on it, says: 

"They are wont to baptize such a proselyte in infancy, upon the profes- 
sion of the house of judgment, for this is for its good ;" ibid. "If an Israel- 
ite take a Gentile child, or find a Gentile infant, and baptizes it in the 
name of a proselyte, behold he is a proselyte." Quotations could be mul- 
tipUed, but it is useless. See Wall, Lightfoot's Horse Hebraicse^ etc., voL 
1 : Selden's Opera, vol. 1 ; Witsius Occon. Feed. Dei, etc. 

It is said the silence of Josephus, Onkelos, Jonathan, and 
Justin Martyr on it, is against its existence. 

1st. IsTone of these had occasion to name it, specially. 

2d. The silence of such writers is no proof. Eusebius, 
Theodoset, Hippolytus, Socrates, Evagrius, Sqjoman, and 
hosts of others who lived when all admit it existed, never 
name it. I^ay, many of the fathers never name it, though they 
lived where it existed. 

3d. Onkelos and Jonathan are simply translators, the one 
:>f the Pentateuch, the other of the prophets, and had no occa- 



Infant Baptism. 66 i 

sion of naming it. But unquestionably Josephus refers to it 
incidentally. War of the Jew8, xi. 8, 7; Stuart, 136. He tells 
us of those joining their sect, how the^^ are held off till ayeai^ 
put to a test; then they are '* made partakers of those purer 
waters which are designed for purification." But Stuart says, 
the Essenes, wash their bodies in cold [with cold] water, etc. 
This is mere twaddle. What if they do ? Was that a proof 
that proselytes were not baptized? But my proof is in the 
Bible, alread}^ adduced. As to not naming a thing of that 
kind, the apostolic churoh practiced infant circumcision; 3^et 
it is not named in all their history and epistles where an in- 
fant was circumcised, where John baptized a woman, or the 
twelve apostles baptized anj^body. 

The Jews baptized their infants. They were accustomed to 
it for ages. The commission was given to a people accustomed 
thus to disciple. Hence the commission ( Matt.xxviii: 19, 20 ) 
could he understood in no other way than as embracing in- 
fants. A special command to baptize infants was wholly un- 
necessary under the circumstances. 

N'otice first, the commission is to the Jews, Matt. x. They 
operate, renovate the church, call the people to repentance and 
faith. Then the final commission— disciple all nations — ta 
ethnee — all the Gentiles as well as Jews, baptizing them ; teach- 
ing them to observe all things etc. 

Let us now examine the language. 

As Alford, Bengel^ Olshausen, Kuinoel, Wahl and Stier 
maintain, and the majority of most eminent critics, the word 
rendered teach, (mathaeteusate) does not mean here to teach, 
or give previous instruction. The fdidaskontes) teaching 
comes after, no period named, and sense and experience or 
well known habit would govern. 

Matt. iv. 18, 22; ix. 9, show that Christ enrolled disciples 
without any previous teaching, and they were adults. He 
certainly can expound his words to us most appropriately. 

2. Tim. iii. 15, 16, Timothy, from a child, (apo brephpi), 
from infancy, knew the Scriptures. He had been taught in 
infancy^ four years old. In ]^um. iii. 27j 28^ eight thousand^ 



662 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

six hundred infants, one month old and upwards, were enrolled 
'•keeping the charge of the sanctuary," to be tanght from in- 
fancy, their religious duties. Here they w^ere enrolled as 
learners, disciples , and though not teachable for several years 
yet they are discipled at a month old. Then, from Moses till 
Christ, every Gentile discipled to the Jewish church, always 
brought in his infants with him. This was universal ; con- 
stant in all the Jewish Israel for one thousand, five hundred 
years. This is worth a thousand opinions of men on these 
things. 

I^ow, then, with these precedents, that every case of dis- 
cipling a Gentile, during 1,500 years, including all his infant 
children ; no exception, ever; Christ a Jew, to twelve apostles, 
Jews, sends them out to ^'di8ci^\e{ta ethnee) the Gentiles;" how 
would they understand it? The commission is thus to be 
explained. It was, therefore, as much a command to baptize 
infants, as it was to baptize any at all. E'o class is specified; 
none expressly named ; they were to carry it out as they had 
always practiced. 

You have fully seen. Gentlemen Moderators, that the Doc- 
tor relies wholly on mere quibbles and dodges on this propo- 
sition. He now aaserts again that I would not define the 
church. We venture to say that more pains never were taken 
to define the church; and a more elaborate definition never 
has been given, that w^e know of by any writer, nay, not by 
half, as we gave in our first and second speeches. They will 
show for themselves. But, as he cannot meet them, he must do 
somethino^ — so he denies all- That is easv work. He calls for 
it in writing. I had it written out— read it all, and as such it 
goes to print. If he desires, I will copy it off for him. 

He parades logic. Alas for logic, if it depends on a mere 
parade of the word with all of Hamlet left out. Where is the 
logic ? Logic compels acceptance of your conclusions, if 
you accept the terms of the Proposition. But the terms must 
be conclusive — true. Kot a single syllogism has he framed 
but would dissolve like mist or frost before the bright sun of 
truth. In each — in all he has begged the question. Is that 
logic? He assumes the very thing in disputCo Is that logic! 



Infant Baptism. 663 

Against my position that infants are innocent, though inher- 
iting a fallen nature, he urges our Discipline that, "they are 
born in sin." By that he ought to know we all teach that we 
simply mean they are depraved in their nature — not actually 
guilty ; for so both Wesley, Watson and Fletcher, with great 
force and clearness explain. Watson and Fletcher elaborate 
it with great force. Indeed, they were the men who first 
brought that question out of the mist and darkness in which 
it had been left by the superstitions that had accumulated 
about it. And after torturing their words into meanings, 
never on earth dreamed of by those fair-minded and great 
men, he pretends to say they taught that infants "deserved 
damnation ! " He knows they were the only men who bodly 
taught that all infants are saved — so says Watson pointedly in 
the Institutes repeatedly — so says Wesley in his sermon on 
David's child in simplest manner; so says Fletcher pointedly 
— ^so says the whole volume of our system of theology ; but 
while we were thus preaching against the old iron-clad systems 
of which Dr. Graves' is a relic^ Baptists — especially all that 
wing from which he professes descent, were preaching all over 
England and the American Colonies — every man of them, that 
hell was jpeopled ivith infants, many of them not a span long I 
Many of them preached it till the last forty or fifty years ? 
Plenty of people yet living, heard them preach it. 

I said infants were innocent — say so still, but did not say 
the rest he says I said, so I let it go. 

He reads the so-called Wesley's Tract. He knows, doubt- 
less, that : 

1. Wesley never wrote that Tract. He says, in so many 
words, he did not, and marked it not to be published as such. 

2. He knows we never did publish it in our church. 

3. He knows that Methodists never did, never can, teach 
such sentiments as that disgusting Tract contains. God forbid 
that Methodists and Baptists should be responsible for all the 
iargon and trash that some old dotard publishers and Rip 
Van Winkles publish. 

4. He knowns the M. E. Church has long since so pubUcly 
repudiated it, as to order it not published, as through the 



664 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

sheer half-idiocy of some old sleeper, it got into print in 
America, and have superseded it with a different work in toto. 

But of course Dr. Graves, as a partizan, has the right to say 
what Methodists believe — not we. Our Bishops may assert, 
and the bosom friend of Wesley, as he did, may publish, and 
Wesley assert that he never wrote that tract, yet, of course 
Dr. Graves knows they all utter an untruth ! They shall be 
the author, and responsible for it. Well done. Dr. Graves — 
stick to it ! 

He still harps on politico — theocracy. Well, when he finds 
it so called by Paul repeatedly, by Christ, James, Stephen and 
by Jehovah, as often as we showed they called God's Zion, his 
" heritage " " the church" — " the church of Jehovah " — and 
Jehovah all orthodox writers agree was Christ — it will do. Till 
then we can smile at his failures. He says again the church 
was founded on circumcision. When (1.) he proves it, we 
will respond. 2. When he meets just one of the crushing re- 
futations of it we presented in our last speech, we may be 
ready with as much more. 

But now he brings up charges and specifications against 
Old Testament Saints! We thought that field was monop- 
olized by Tom Paine long ago. He urges they were not such as 
would do for the church now! Me! What a Godly people 
then ! Paul did not know that, or he would have been saved 
the awful blunder of writing the eleventh chapter of Hebrews. 
Alas for fame! Peter never did wrong in the i!Tew Testament 
church, did he? Judas never acted badly. Diotrophes, 3d 
John, ix, 11; the parties in Gal. ii, 4; Jude iv, 9, vvere all 
good innocents, as well as Hymeneus and Alexander, Satan's 
favorite friends, who figured in the church in Paul's day. We 
have no bad fellows in any of our churches now, no Rebeccas, 
no Isaacs. Oh ! happy times ! 

He urges that Masons can only make Masons by a regular 
Lodge, hence runs the analogy. 

1. l^otice here he again needs analogy, uses the very thing 
he so fiercely condemns. 

2. It destroys his position. Let us suppose all Lodges were 
under civil wars, prosecutions, etc., disbanded, not an organ- 



Infant Baptism. 665 

ized Lodge in America or the world. But there are plenty of 
Masons. The storm sweeps by. IN^ow we ask, will not these 
Masons come together and promptly organize themselves into 
Lodges and be as legitimate as ever existed? His illustration 
IS thus deadly against him. So, were all the congregations 
of God's people scattered and disorganized. It would not de- 
stroy the church, not for a moment. As Masonry survives in 
the principles it inculcates, so Christianity lives in the imper- 
ishability — the indestructibility of its principles, and as long 
as they live, the church of God will live. 

If I am made to say in the Louisville Debate that infants are 
not "persons," it was the error of the reporter, as mine made 
many errors, and lost over half of what I did say on Infant 
Baptism, as any one who hears me speak must know, who 
sees how short my speeches are, especially the first seven. 

But, sir, we repeat — what has the Doctor done? He has re- 
lied solely on special pleading. Not a single effort to estab- 
lish a consistent thread of argument to offset or overthrow 
our position — he has simply relied on filing the most contra- 
dictory objections, seven-tenths of which lie with equal weight 
against his own church. The infants are in yet — he canH get them 
out. — \_Time Out.'] 



666 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FIFTH REPLY. 



Replication. 



Mr. President : — 1 wish to call the attention of all to the 
two facts that by this time must begin to make an impression 
upon all minds. 1. That my opponent has just finished two days 
more — Rve elaborate speeches, and has not produced one pre- 
cept for, or example of, Infant Baptism in the Old or Kew 
Testaments — nor has he claimed to have done so. This is one 
fact that speaks volumes. Do not all before me believe that 
he would have brought forward a passage, if he had had one — if 
he knew of one that oftered the semblance of authority for it? 
Mark when he comes to the last proposition, how many scrip- 
ture texts he will quote in his first speech — and in every 
speech — to teach falling from grace, because he believes they 
afford some plausible support to his faith, but why has he 
not, in two days claimed even one passage in the New and Old 
Testaments to authorize Infant Baptism ? He admits it is an 
institution either of Judaism or Christianity, and if so, it has 
an express enacting law somewhere — for an institution in the 
absence of l3iW csinuothe inferred. If he can find no law or clear 
example of it, he can find no authority for it in God's word, and 
therefore up to this hour he has none — nothing to support the 
proposition, i. e., to prove that " Infant Baptism is authorized 
by the Word of God." 

2. The next fact that must have astonished you all, is that in 
his last speech he has left the Word of God altogether and 
fallen back upon Prosel^^te Baptism, to find the origin and sup- 
port of Infant Baptism ! Is not this a loud practical declaration 
that he cannot find either in the Bible? I shall notice this 
argument which I esteem the forlorn hope of Infant Baptism, 
in connection with John's baptism, where it justly belongs 
commiserating however the urgent stress in which my oppo- 
nent so soon finds himself as to resort to this refuge so early 



Infant Baptism. 667 

in the conflict. But, suppose I should grant that Proselyte 
baptism was practiced long before Christ's advent, and that 
Infant Baptism was originated in or by it, what follows ? — Pros- 
elyte baptism was never anything but a tradition of the Eld- 
ers, it was not instituted by God, and there he is confessing 
to you that Infant Baptism is a tradition of Judaism ! Is this 
proving that it is authorized by the Word of God ? He can- 
not do his cause greater injury than to spend his time on 
Proselyte, baptism — 

3. Another fact which I see from the very faces of his 
friends when I speak of it, begins to give them anxious 
thought. He has refused to give a definition of a visible 
church, an earthly organization that has the ordinance of bap- 
tism in it ! The thing he has defined as a church, is what is 
known in theology as the invisible church, that as Elder Ditz- 
ler says may be perfect, irrespective of rites of any kind, and 
may not have a living member on earth! Is that the church f He 
tells you that the main strength of his argument for Infant 
Baptism is to prove there were infants in all, ages in this in- 
visible church which he calls the general assembly, and church 
of the first-born in heaven — the whole family of God where- 
ever on earth — and yet he says that baptism nor any other 
rite is a condition of membership in this church. How then 
does the fact that there have always been infants in that in- 
visible church prove that they have been baptized ! or that In- 
fant Baptism as practiced by the M. E. Church is authorized 
by the Word of God ! And yet he tells you how much he 
has done. That he has already put in alibis arguments — atid 
this is true — that he has at last struck his rock, adamant — - 
Proselyte Baptism — that our opponent cannot remove or 
shake — I will show you that it is a reef under his own keel 
that he has struck. You will notice that this is the last speech 
in which he will attempt to lead — he will fall behind and at- 
tempt to pick up here and there the scattered fragments of 
his broken vessel. 

]^ow, Mr. President, I wish to call your attention, and that 
of every one, to several important, and singular admissions he 
has made in answer to my direct questionSo 



668 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I asked him if he meant by '' Covenant of Grace," what is 
generally understood as the Covenant of Redemption ? and he 
has answered affirmatively. This is correct and clear. 

I asked him to state when, where, and with lohom it was first 
made ? He has answered, immediately after the fall in the 
Garden of Eden, and to Eve,* the mother of all flesh, substan- 
tially or in essence, when God said to her that her seed should 
bruise the serpent's head. 

I asked him if that covenant, when first made or announced, 
originated his church, which he stood here to defend? He 
has answered that it did. 

These answers more clearly disclose the real foundation of 
my friend's theory by which he brings all children into his 
church, and consequently^ if only carried out, the whole world 
in one generation. The first rock of this foundation is laid 
upon a theological falsehood, an absurdity — i. c, that the Cov- 
of Grace was made with mortal, sinful flesh, or with any 
created being ! The whole tenor of the Word of God is 
directly against this assumption. Why, sir, the race had fallen 
into irretrievable moral and spiritual bankruptcy and ruin, 
temporal and eternal. It was wholly without strength or 
abilitj'. It was utterly irresponsible, and therefore unable to 
enter into covenant to perform any condition. I^c, sir, if 
there is the least ray of hope for any one of Adam's race, it is 
the glorious Gospel fact that help was laid on one that was 
mighty to save, that the Covenant of Redemption was made 
by the Father with the Son, and that before the world was. 
This grand fundamental truth no orthodox theologian, or 
Christian, ever denied or ever will den3^ 

I propose to develop this covenant with the true purport of 
each covenant of the Old Testament, whenever I can get my 
opponent to commence the work, which before we came here, 
he privately promised me he would do in this discussion, that 
we might find which, if any, supported Infant Baptism. 

^NoTE. — I see in looking over Elder Ditzler's speech since it has been set 
up to be published, that he has omitted his answers to my questions, as I 
have indicated in my speech. That he did say that the Covenant of Grace 
or Redemption was fii'st made with, or announced to. Eve in the Garden, 
the notes of the reporter will show, and every impartial man who heard 
him will testify. J. B. Graves . 



Infant Baptism. 669 

We mutually agreed that they had not been thoroughly 
discussed in previous debates, and that the people generally 
had no clear apprehension of them. Elder Ditzler having run 
over all his ground will, I trust, in his next speech come back 
to the thorouj^h discussion of the covenants, or surrender 
them. It was the Father who made the Covenant of Redemp- 
tion with "His chosen," his Son, and gave Him a seed, a peo- 
ple to be saved, that no man can number with the stipulated 
conditions. It was the Son who became the party contractor 
for the seed He laid hold of, engaging himself to perform all 
the conditions of that covenant, so that he might become the 
Savior, the Redeemer of his people. 

IN'o, and let every one who hopes to be saved write it upon 
his heart. '' The Covenant of Redemption, or Grace, was 

NEVER MADE WITH ANY MORTAL OR CREATED BEING !" 

But he says it was in substance, essence, made with Eve 
when God said to her, that her seed should bruise the serpent's 
head. Is not this a singular assertion from one who never 
makes a mistake about facts ! This language, which he calls 
the covenant, was not addressed to Eve at all, but to the ser- 
pent — to Satan — himself! ! Therefore the covenant of grace was 
first made with the devil, and, therefore, if it developed or called 
a church into existence, Satan was, by covenant, made the 
federal head of it! And its only members in the garden, in 
the Eden church, were Satan and two poor, fallen, depraved 
sinners, Adam and Eve; but, alas, not a babe or a child in it! 
And this is my opponent's church! that has come down in 
unbroken, continuity! of which he is a member, and the 
accredited champion ! What fearful, fatal admissions! What 
a terrible foundation to build a church upon! Does Infant 
Baptism require this defense? Thus have I glycerined the 
very foundation of his system. I have showd that, if there 
was a spiritual church, in Abel's day, in heaven or ear^^A, visible 
or invisible, he was the only member of it, and when Cain slew 
him, he destroyed both the visible and invisible church, with 
one and the same blow! and thus his con^zm^% was broken — ■ 
staple and chain being crushed. 

Where next does he start his church ? He comes down 2033 



670 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

years, leaving the world without a church, and starts one with 
Abraham, and strange to say, asserts that the Covenant of 
Redemption was made with Abraham, when a sinner and 
idolater \ and what will make the ears of every Christian to 
tingle, and his eyes open with wonder, asserts that 
Jesus Christ became surety to Abraham for the Father that 
the promises of that Covenant should be fulfilled ! ! I have 
heard many wild, incoherent, and absurd things advanced by 
professed ministers of the gospel and teachers of Christianity, 
but, save Eld. Ditzler's declaration, that the Covenant of 
Grace was fi.rst made or announced to Eve in the garden, I 
never heard anything so astonishing as this. It would be 
denied by Eld. Ditzler and his friends, after the heat of this 
discussion is over, if not placed on the printed page, and en- 
dorsed by him. 

I will quote his words, letter and point. In his second 
speech you will find these words. 

The covenant of redemption was, that made with Abraham." 
" Chr'^p^t had become surety to Abraham for the Father that tl^ie prom- 
ises should be fulfilled — ' by so much was Jesus made a surety of a better 
testament^'''' — (Heb. viii, 22). 

I confess myself bewildered by the strangeness — the iin- 
scripturalness and irreligiousness of such statements. I have 
said what every intelligent Christian knows, that the covenant 
of redemption was not made with mortal flesh — not even Ad- 
am, with whom God made a covenant of works in respect to 
which he failed and involved his whole seed — but God made it 
with "his chosen" — the second Adam, who took not hold of, 
engaged not for, the seed of Adam, but the seed of Abraham, 
and it was as party contractor in this covenant of redemption 
that Christ became surety to his Father for his people of the 
seed of Abraham — the sheep the father gave him to save and 
to keep. 

It is not the responsible, but the irresponsible party that 
needs a surety — security. N'ot the loaner but the irresponsi- 
ble borrower of money, that needs a surety — some one to be- 
come his securit}'. 

But all this will be considered fully when Eld. Ditzler con- 



Infant Baptism. 671 

sents to enter upon the fall discussion of the covenants. But 
he now commences his church with Abraham as its Head, 
and his family as its members, taking the family as a unit, and 
the sort of church it was, I developed in my last speech. My 
opponent and many writers do not seem impressed with the 
tact that when the Covenant of Promise was first made with 
Abraham, for it was the self-same covenant, renewed and en- 
larged, when confirmed by its seal to Abraham and a token to 
all his descendants; when Abraham was beyond the flood in 
the land of Ur of the Chaldees, an idolater, as all his fathers 
were — Josh. xxiv. 3. We read in Gen. xii. 1, the promises 
of the covenant which God made with Abraham before he 
crossed the Euphrates, and when an idolater — though mj' 
opponent, as many do, refers to this promise or covenant, as the 
Covenant of Grace, made after Abraham had entered Canaan 
and become justified by faith in the Christ God revealed to 
him. It is too wild and absurd a statement to notice, that the 
Covenant of Redemption was made with a wicked idolater, 
and that Jesus, whom Abraham at this time did not know, 
became to this idolater a surety that God, whom Abraham 
did not know, would fulfill the promises of it. 

The time has certainly come, and I now urge my opponent 
to develop his views of this covenant and tell us how he can 
bring the children of all into the church of the gospel dispen- 
sation by it — and make, if possible, a little more clear the identi- 
ty and continuity of this church of two idolaters without in- 
fants or children — with the spiritual church of the New Dis- 
pensation ! I wait for it. > 

To his assertion that I rely " wholly on quibbles and dodges," 
I reply: Those who hear us, and those who read the record 
will decide this — one thing is certain, if I have quibbled or 
dodged. Elder Ditzler has failed to show it as plainly as he 
failed in showing anything silly in my logical arguments — 
yes, as as signally as he failed in his attempt to construct a logi- 
cal syllogism I 

Two little things more before I proceed with my examina- 
tion of the Old Testament. 

1. He declares that Wesley never wrote the Tract on Bap- 



672 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tism published in Doctrinal Tracts — and that his church is not 
responsible for its sentiments, etc., and that I know it, etc. What 
are the facts in the case that I do know. (1). That on July 
5th, 1832, the Methodist book concern issued a collection of 
tracts, titled " Doctrinal Tracts." In the " advertisenaent" I 
read this : 

"Several new Tracts are included in this volume, and Mr. Wesley's 
Short Treatise on Baptism is substituted in the place of the extract from 
Mr. Edwards on that subject." 

It must be supposed that the Book Committee knew whose 
work they were publishing — they said it was Mr. Wesley's. 
They published this essay as Mr. Wesley's until 1861, when 
thev substituted another tract in lieu of it — that makes direct 
war on Baptists — but do they say that they do so because they 
disapprove the doctrinal sentiments of the essay, or because 
they have found out that it is not Mr. Wesley's ? I^o, but 
they, in 1861', say that it is " Mr. Wesley's treatise." 

They published and circulated it twenty-nine years for 
Mr. Wesley's work — they still publish to the world that it is 
Mr. Wesley's, but Eld. Ditzler, without a word of j9roo/says it 
is not Mr. Wesley's! Whom will you believe ? But what 
matters it whether the man Jno. Wesley or some unknown 
man wrote it — it has received the highest an^d fullest endorse- 
ment of the Methodist Episcopal Church for twenty-nine years 
and the Methodist Episcopal Church South, circulated it. 
It was never left out until a hook entitled the Great Iron Wheel had 
been published five years. 

Heretofore, no man presumed to deny the statements of 
the M. E. Church, that Wesley wrote the Treatise but Metho- 
dist preachers, putting the last edition in the hands of their 
people, have taught them to deny that such sentiments as I 
have quoted, were ever in the Doctrinal Tracts, putting our 
people to the trouble and expense of getting the editions, 
previous to 1861, to show that the author of the Great Iron 
Wheel, and other Baptists, had not misrepresented the pub- 
lished sentiments of Methodists. This matter is at last settled. 
Eld. Ditzler, with the book before him, does not deny that it 
was taught in the Doctrinal Tracts previous to 1861 ; that, " if 
infants are guilty of original sin, then they are the proper 



^r- Infant Baptism. 'V 673 

subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot 

BE SAVED UNLESS THIS BE WASHED AWAY BY BAPTISM ; " and these 

words also: ''Baptism is the ordinary instrument of our justi- 
fication," and by baptism we receive, "the washing away the 
guilt of original sin, by the application of the merits of 
Christ's death." * * "by baptism, we, who are by nature the 
children of wrath, are made the children of God." 

"And this regeneration which our church in so many places ascribes to 
baptism is more than barely being admitted into the church, though com- 
monly connected therewith; being 'grafted into the body of Christ's 
church, we are made the children of God by adoption and grace.' " — Doc. 
Tra., page 248. 

IN'ow my opponent seeks to break the force of my argument 
and turn attention from the teachings of his own church, by 
charging that my people once preached " all over in England 
and the American Colonies — every man of them — that hell 
was peopled with infants, many of them not a span long." 
Eld. Ditzler is not the first Methodist preacher who has 
charged this upon the denomination with which I stand con- 
nected — for I know of none but Methodist preachers who ever 
made this charge — it is peculiarly a Methodist calumny, that 
has been, from its first utterance, met with a fiat contradiction 
— charged as a slander, and proof demanded, one solitary in- 
stance where a regular Baptist minister ever taught the fear- 
ful horrible doctrine in the Doctrinal Tracts above quoted, 
or any thing akin to it, but no proof has ever been presented, 
or can be, and yet Eld. Ditzler stands here before you and 
repeats the calumny. It is utterly false and impossible. I de- 
mand for the honor of my people that he here and now pro- 
duce the proof of his statement, or, it will fall heavily upon 
his own head — that he has deliberately " taken up," repeated 
and endorsed a false report against my people, and it will fol- 
low his name so long as the record of this discussion is read. 

But before I close what I have to say upon this proposition, 
I will show you that infant Baptism was originated by those 
who believed with Mr. Wesley, that no infant could be saved 
without baptism, and I will show you that it has been perpet- 
uated from then until now, in order to secure or make certain 
the salvation of infants. 
■ 42 



674 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I will now push forward my search for a church in the old 
dispensation. 

We come now to the time when God saw fit to fulfill one of 
the temporal promises in the Covenant of Circumcision. Up 
to this time the descendants of Abraham have been considered 
as a family. Now God is going to make of the Twelve Tribes, 
not a church, but " A Great Nation. ' 

Under the direction of the Most High, Moses led his peo- 
ple out of the land of Egypt, "the house of their bondage. * to 
the shores of the Red Sea, and stretching out his rod over the 
Sea, its waters divided on the right hand and on the left from 
shore to shore, and the Israelites entered into the midst of 
the sea and disappeared from human sight, and were thus "im- 
mersed into Moses in the cloud, and in the sea." They thus 
accepted him as their deliverer and their law-giver and their 
guide. This baptism was a figurative profession of their /azY-Zi 
in him, in the promises of God proclaimed unto them by him. 
This act did not constitute them into a church — for thev were 
a body of idolaters — Moses was leading them to the foot of Mt. 
Sinai to meet with God. Here God gave them "the Law of Com- 
mandments," written on two tables of stone, and the "Law 
'Of Ordinances," which together is called The Law, and entered 
into a covenant with them, and by this covenant they were for 
the first time constituted into a Nation — a Theocracy — with a 
written constitution and laws. This covenant is called 
throughout the New Testament, the Law, the "first Testament" 
— the Old Testament, and by theological writers the Smaitic 
Covenant. Though God gave them a civil government and a 
system of religion w^ith numerous carnal ordinances, He did 
not thereby constitute them into a visible Christian church. 

He did not make regeneration of heart a condition of citi- 
zenship in this kingdom, nor did he make it a qualification 
for the enjoyment of any civil or religious ordinance, not 
even to the office of a priest. 

The teachings of my opponent are misleading on this point. 
You must remember that it is absolutely necessary to his argu- 
ment, it is vital to the theory on which his church rests that he 
constructs or sets up a church and a Christian church right 



Infant Baptism. 675 

here. You all see thut he will not have so much as a particle 
of sand to stand on. unless he can prove that this people but 
yesterday a crowd of slaves, subject to the kings of Egypt, 
and debased by the degrading idolatry of the Egyptians, 
is here recognized as a church of faithful men. 

I do not deny that God required of them all to love Him, 
and to serve Him, and to obey both tables of the Law, but He 
did not make this a condition of citizenship, nor even a qual- 
ification for any Civil or priestly office. The Sinaitic 
Covenant constituted the Twelve Tribes of Israel into one 
Nation — E pluribus unum — and nothing more. 

It was no more a Christian church than the Germanic con- 
federation is a church — or, than the thirty-four States of this 
Union are a church, or would be a Christian church. Suppose 
it should adopt Romanism or Methodism as the State religion 
and the Congress with the President should ordain and ap- 
point all the priests and pay theni out of the public treasury. 
It w oi\\d he Sb politico-religious gov eruuient but not a church. 
Elder Ditzler knows as well as I, that such was the character 
of the Jewish commonwealth under Moses. You remember 
his declaration, "no one can be a member of the church in any 
sense unless regenerated," '^justified by faith in Christ." 

It was not required of these recently emancipated slaves, idol- 
aters in heart, to possess this qualification to be embraced in 
the constitution of the commonwealth and enjoy citizenship 
in the Jewish nation, and every man in this house knows it. 

But suppose I grant, which I do not, a church here and on- 
ward until Christ came no infant, as such, was ever in it, accord- 
ing to Elder Ditzler, because no unconscious infant ever was 
"justified by faith" — was ever "in Christ" and therefore never 
in this church or any church. 

That the Jewish nation under the Sinaitic constitution did 
have a certain relation to the church under the Gospel Dis- 
pensation, which caused Stephen to speak of it as the "ecde- 
sia en eramin " — church in the wilderness, I am free to admit; 
but what that relation was, though not incumbent upon me, 
I will show in my explication of the two covenants as time 
may permit. My solitary business now is to explode my oppo- 



676 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

nent's theory of church identity, from which he infers infant 
baptism. If I demonstrate as I thus far have done, that there 
was no church in the Old Testament, his theory falls and his 
inference wont draw. For as Peter Edwards says, "between 
a church that never existed and an existing one, there can be 
no analogy." 

I now apply the reductio ad a65wr(ii/m to his argument based 
on the Jewish nation — as identical with the Christian church. 
It is a fallacious and dangerous argument for it proves too miich. 

If, because we find infants in the old Jewish commonwealth, 
we may introduce them therefore into the Christian church, 
because the church possesses essentially the same character 
under all dispensations. 

Then what follows ! — A hundred and one traditions of the 
Papacy, as the union of Church and State. This is the very 
argument that all Pedobaptists in the old world are wont to 
use to maintain the iniquitous union of Church and State, and 
the sword in the hands of the Civil Magistrate to enforce the 
faith and exterminate heretics, and this was the very argu- 
ment that Episcopalians in old Virginia used, and the Puritans 
in New England, to imprison, whip, and persecute Baptists and 
Quakers. I say through this very door that my opponent 
would open to let infants into the church, rush in all Romish 
rites and traditions that Protestants as well as Baptists so 
much oppose, a human priesthood, altars and sacrifices, etc., 
etc. Catholics use Eld. Ditzler's very arguments, "Our wor- 
ship must be of the same nature and kind with the Jewish 
worship, because it was to succeed it." 

But I propose now to let a few of the more distinguished 
advocates of Infant Baptism demolish this Jewish Church 
identity as a tenable ground for Infant Baptism or any other 
practice in the Church of Christ. 

J. G. Manly.— "Whatever be the nature of the Christian Ministry 
and the method of Christian worship, we should not look for their orgin 
and model in the weak and beggarly elements of a superseded system, 
but in the New Testament itself, which alone is the record and rule of the , 
church of Christ. Judaism had no church, either national or otherwise." 
"The stereotyped verbiage and transcript! ve absurdity of justifying nation- 



Infant Baptism. 677 

al churchism by Judaism, should at onee and forever cease." ^'No one 
that understands the relation of Christianity to Judaism, can suppose for 
a moment that the former is, or ought to be, modeled after the latter. — 
The better is not moulded by the less. The superior and permanent is 
not copied from the inferior and abrogated. Day is not the imitation of 
moonlight. Antitypes do not take their shape and hue from ty]3es. If 
Judaism is to be our model, we ought to abolish the church and make the 
nation everythmg."— [^cc^e., pp. 222, 223, 226. 

Dr. Halley, in reply to Dr.Wardlaw, says: '^Another objection to the 
reasoning of my friend, which appears to me to nullify his argument, is, 
that the visible or national church of Israel was the creation, not of the 
Abrahamic covenant, but of the Mosaic law. ' ' ' 'The national church of Is- 
rael was abolished with the Mosaic law. " "If he means by the former dis- 
pensation the Mosaic law, with its national church, it is forever abolished 
and its constitution is irrelevant to the argument. — [pp. 144, 145. 

Dr WardLiAW, on State Establishments of Christianity, says what can 
truthfully be applied to the advocates of Infant Baptism as justified by 
Ood's covenant with Abraham. "Few things are more surprising than 
the use that has been made of" circumcision and God''s covenant with 
Abraham "toehcit from" them^'an indication of the will of God" respect- 
ing the appointed subjects of Christian baptism — "the amount of ingeni- 
ous theorizing that has been expended upon it." 

Dr. A, Claeke, Meth. '■''They which are the chikk'en of the Jlesh^ Qtc. 
"Whence it appears that not the children who descend from Abraham's 
loins, nor those w^ho were circumcised as he was, nor even those whom he 
m.ight expect and desire, are therefore the church and people of God." — 
Cbm., on Rom. ix 8. 

Mr. Payne, on evidence of the popish mass, says : ^'I come now to the 
JS^ew Testament, where, if there be any proof of the sacrifice of the mass, 
it is more likely to find them than in the Old; yet they produce twice as 
many more, such as they are, out of that than this, and, like some other 
persons, are more beholden to dark types and obscure prophecies of the 
Old Testament to make out their principles, than to the clear light of the 
gospel, and to any plain places in the New; and yet^ if any such 
doctrine as this were to be received by Christians, and if any such won- 
derful and essential part of worship were appointed by Christ, or taught 
and practiced by the apostles, we should surely have it more plainly set 
down in the New Testament than they were able to show it." — Pres. ag. 
Fo., p. 64- 

James Owen. — "No argument cam be drawn from the ceremonial law 
to the gospel, because we are not under the obligation of that law." — His. 
of Images^ &e., p. 107« 

B. H. Cooper's words are as applicable to infant Baptism as to religious 
establishments. He says: "It is in vain, therefore, to cite the precedent 
of the Jewish theocracy in defence of religious estabUshments ; and to 
whine out the complaint that to antiquate this precedent is to rob a Chris- 



678 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tian king of his only chart of duty which might dh-ect him in his capacity 
of a sovereigu." — Fre€ Ch^, &c., pp., 63^64. 

Dr. J. Stagey, Meth. — "Baptism and the Lord's Supper . . , were not 
Jewish, but Ctiristian — not a brief cotinuation of the past, but a regulative 
commencement of the future. They were not observed as modified rites 
of an old but as distisguishing signs of a new dispensation." — The Sac.^ 
p. 272. 

Dr. Waedlaw, I adduce in reply to himself and others. He says, 
"that the Jewish constitution was entirely sid generis^ instituted by Jeho- 
vah for special purposes, never by Him intended to be, nor indeed capable 
of being imitated : — ^that in the primary constitution of the Christian 
church there was an actual departure from it, and a complete change of 
system — such a change as makes it manifest, if any thing can, that every 
attempt to set up the former as a pattern, or plead it as an example, is 
what I have called, a presumptuous and preposterous return to that which 
is abolished, and an overthrowing, in its very spirit and principle, of the 
constitution of the kingdom of Christ, as originally delivered to His apos- 
tles by its supreme and only Head." ( The Scr. Arg , p. 31). He has be- 
fore said (p. 14): "We are not entitled to alter and to modify Divine 
examples If they are meant for our imitation at all, we should regard 
them as they are — ^not taking a part and leaving a part — following what 
accords with our notions of expediency, and declining the rest." 

J. A. James. — As to the argument which is founded upon the Constitu- 
tion of the Jewish Theocracy, we consider it so nrelevant and inapplica- 
ble, that the very attempt to bi'ing it forward in support of a Christian 
institute, betrays at once the weakness of the cause." — On Diss,^ p. 10. 

Dr. J. Stoughton, instead of teaching that the apostles were so inhe- 
rently, abundantly, and necessarily Jewish, that, after they had received 
the baptism of the Spirit, they could conceive of and practice nothing but 
what accorded with the historic past says, "A Christian church, in some 
of its most essential points, was, after all, a perfectly new institute, in im- 
measurable advance of anything which the Jews before had witnessed, or 
been taught to conceive." {-4ges of Chris., p. 37j. Also in Ecclesia, he 
says : "The Jewish church was in certain respects, and those the most 
characteristic and striking, so utterly different from the chiu-ches instituted 
by the Apostles, that a combination of the principles of the first, with the 
principles of the second, is simply impossible. New Testament prece- 
dents may be set aside for the sake of adopting Old Testament examples ; 
— the system pursued by the early Christians may be exchanged for the 
system practiced by the House of Israel ; but the one can never be modi- 
fied by the other. It is a question not of modification, but of revolution ; 
as we see at once when we compare the principle features of the one, with 
what were the prominent marks of the other" (p. 20). Again (p. 22),. 
"Can the ecclesiastical constitution of Judaism be harmoniously incorpo- 
rated with the Apostohc institutions of Christianity ? The true answer is 
unquestionably in the negative." 

J, Locke. — "Nobody is born a member of any church ^ otherwise th© 



Infant Baptism. 679 

religion of parents would descend unto children by the same right of in- 
heritance a.s their temporal estates, and every one would hold his faith by 
the same tenure he does his land ; than which nothing can be imagined 
more absurd." — Works, vol. vi, p. 13. 

Dr. E. DE Pressense. — "Christian baptism does not transmit itself by 
right of inheritance any more than faith." 

All these are Pedobaptists, and standard writers, and I do 
hope that Christian Pedobaptists will hear their voice and 
abandon the practice, until they can find authority for it in the 
I^ew Testament. 

Refutation. 

I conclude my refutation of the "church identity" theory, 
which is the entire authority for Infant Baptism, with follow- 
ing arguments : 

Aug. XVn. (1). Christ declared that his kingdom was not of this world, 
else his subjects would fight for him, i. e., with carnal weapons. 

(2). But, the Jewish kingdom was of this world — a politico-religious 
government — and the subjects of it did fight for their kings with carnal 
weapons. 

Ergo — (3). The Jewish kingdom was not the Idngdom or church of 
Christ. 

Arg. XVIIl. (1). Paul said, by the Holy Spirit that "flesh and blood" 
carnally minded men, cannot inherit the kingdom of God. 

(2). But flesh and blood, carnal men, did inherit the old Jewish com- 
monwealth. 

(3). Ergo The old Jewish Commonwealth was not the hteral kingdom 
of God. 

Arg. XIX. (1). That which is already in existence cannot be brought 
into existence, and that which is already set up cannot be set up. 

If the kingdom of God was set up by the Abrahamic or 

the Sinaitic Covenant, aud had never ceased to exist, it could not 

be again set up or brought into existence as Daniel prophesied 

it should be subsequent to his time. 

Ergo — (3). The kingdom of God that Daniel prophesied of, which was 
the visible church of Christ, was not an institution that had been set up in 
the days of Abraham, or Moses. 



68p, The Great Carroh,ton.: Deb ate. 



: , , DR.. DITZLER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderatoes: — We will now review some mat- 
ters, as we have in, all the evidence we want. I^ow he admits 
I gave a definition of the church, in his fifth reply, but it is too 
long. Well, why did he so stoutly deny I gave one? 

"There is no visible church if scattered abroad !" What of 
it?^ There is God' s church, and the moment they can meet to- 
gether, and organize, there is a visible church, and its rights 
and privileges all grow out of those given to the whole m\\mh\e, 
spiritual church of God. But Dr. Graves has stoutly denied 
there was an invisible church. Now he is compelled to fall back 
on it, as we knew he would be. Abel, Enoch, etc., were all 
members of that one church. It cannot he destroyed. In any 
age or all ages, any of its subjects dispersed or not, may or- 
ganize or meet, and they form a visible representation of the 
great family of God. How could it be otherwise ? Christ 
gave the pledge of eternal presence to his people. 

"Every infant has to be washed in the blood of Christ," he 
tells us, if he dies. But do not adults have to have the merit 
of the same a//^er regeneration, nay, till death, daily applied? 
So they are depraved yet. So the infant has to have no more 
of that than regenate adults. What processes adults and in- 
fants pass through, is not revealed to us, and I do not propose 
to speculate outside the record. 

He saj^s we published Wesley's Tract "till the last year or 
two." Why will Dr. Graves persist in unseemly talk? Did 
he ever see an edition later than 1836 ? That is/or?f^ years ago. I 
never saw but two or three copies in my life — they, save one, 
were in the hands of our bitterest enemies. ISTow he knows 
we — my church — never did publish it. The M. E. Church 
long since repudiated it, never did teach what it contains; but 
the silly old publisher thought it was Wesley's Tract, and like 
many dotards supposed if it was, it must be published. But 



Infant Baptism. 68 i 

you can look at bis argument in that Tract on Romans, vi. 4. 
He denies it is immersion out and out. ISTow Wesley, you 
quoted, says it is an allusion to immersion. That Tract says 
it is not. It not only is proved to be not his by external 
proofs, Wesley's own denial among them, but by interned. Do 
you endorse Bunyan's Open Communion ? ! no. Do not 
your people still publish all Bunyan's works ? Even if Wes- 
ley had written such a Tract in an earlier day, then rejected, 
and we all reject, would we not do as you do ? Do you ac- 
cept the creed published by the Baptists of your wing in 1646 
almost word for word the same in all doctrines, as the Presby- 
terian Confession ? Do you still hold that '^ elect Infants" are 
saved ? and all the old rigid points of that creed ? Here you 
have been charging, repudiating, and going back on all your 
ancestry, wliile we have never changed on a single point of 
faith. We have never been compelled to repudiate, revise, 
i^evamp and burnish up again. Why ? Because always 
correct — stand in the Bible as a whole. But we do not propose 
to let the Doctor off just here. He has often told us of 'Hhe 
Controversialist^'^ as if in good sooth he had not been wearing, 
war paint or polkberry juice all over his face from the days I 
was a lad, dangling bloody scalps from his belt, in which hung 
the knife and hatchet, bloody from fierce execution. Do you 
not see — mark the real partisan ? We have allowed hiw. to 
expound Baptist verity. We could show where he runs 
against Ripley, Bunyan, Helwys, the real founder in the Cal- 
vinistic wing of his church, and Carson. But we had a repre- 
sentative, endorsed man — accepted his exposition as that of 
Baptists here. Has he done so by our church ? ^o. He 
knows what we teach. He has mis-stated us every time. Why 
this persistent course ? It argues desperation : To go clear 
under in such a contest, is unpleasant. Hence he feels called 
upon to fight for life itself As I have all my proof in, that I 
need, if he chooses this method, we lose nothing. 

But here is an argument — hear it. '*It is worth your hear- 
ing, Hal." Dr. Graves urges if all are baptized, you cannot 
carry out the commission, for there would none be left to dis- 
ciple ! I heard that when a child from a plain old ''disciple" 



.682 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

farmer, and it amazed me then ; but little did I dream a great 
debater would use it. 

By the same rule all men ought not to be converted and 
saved, ior there would be left no one to enable us to carry out 
the commission ! All men ought not to repent and be convert- 
ed and be baptized lest the commission be a nullity. Well, 
Doctor, we console you with this, if all were baptized — all 
infants — we believe you w^ould not have many years to rest 
in before there would still be a demand for your services. 

He urges that Philip demanded a confession of the Eunuch, 
Acts viii. 37, before he baptized him. Does he not know that 
the 37 verse, that so called confession, is a forgery ? that it is 
so glaring a forgery that A. Campbell, Anderson, Wilson, all, 
threw it out of their immersion versions ? Yet it is not in 
any ancient Bible or Version only where it has been incorpor- 
ated by late hands in inferior MSS. Hence it is not in any 
correct Greek Text. 

He urges that Jesus is the foundation of the church. Exact- 
ly so ; so we showed, far, far beyond what he has attempted. 
He was "the founder and finisher of the faith" through which 
Abel, Enoch and Abraham — Moses and all were saved. So the 
same Apostle he quotes on Eph., ii., tells us. Dr. Graves has 
not once even alluded to that part of my argument. 

He tells us when John and Christ came they were looking 
for a new kingdom. Where is the proof? We read where 
they wished to know if he came " at this time to restore again 
the kingdom." Acts i. 6. 

So loosely does the Doctor put matters. 

He says John now preached repentance towards God — he 
baptized none but believers — none but those who received 
him. I am a preacher of a new order of things — the ax is laid 
to the root of the tree. " The Doctor goes through the mo- 
tion of John swinging his heavy ax — great work — a new 
church, we presume, is now to arise. 

He says " now all stood on individuality." Such is, in brief, 
the account he gives of John to prove that the Jewish people 
were not a church and now a real reform was at hand. He 



Infant Baptism. 683 

tells us that it was the death of the whole old system. !N"ow — 

1. Always men stood on their own responsibility, as the 
Old Testament repeatedly tells us. That was not new. 

2. John preached. So did Isaiah, Jeremiah and all the 
Prophets — and every whit as good preaching, as you will not 
deny. The truth is, but for John's relation to the Messiah 
his preaching was of the lowest order a Prophet ever uttered; 
for he openly avers his inferior position. He merely baptizes 
with water — emphasizes the " with ivater^' every time. Even 
the twelve Apostles are exalted far above that. Paul boasts 
that he wa« not sent to baptize. Yet a calling that Apostles 
did not comedown to as a rule, was John's main office — 

2. He baptized — not really penitent believers in Christ, but 
"unto repentance." Anderson has it ''in order to repent- 
ance." It looked e?5 to repentance — a mental aim. As they 
had not repented, they were not believers in Jesus. 

8. Luke and Matthew put it in proof that this was the 
case. Read Luke iii. 15 to 20, and you see that those John 
was baptizing were in expectation — that is waiting turn to be 
baptized, Yet " were in doubt whether John were the Christ 
or not." Here the people he baptized, (1). Were denounced 
as vipers. (2). Baptized unto repentance, (3). Were in 
doubt, (4). They believed John was the Christ. Is that the 
great work to be done ? 

Matthew ix, 14 says — " Then came to him (Christ) the Dis- 
ciples of John, saying, why do we and the Pharisees fast oft, 
but thy disciples fast hot ?" Hereafter John's baptism is over, 
his disciples come to Jesus and (1) Mark themselves as not 
being the disciples of Jesus, (2) They rank themselves with 
" the Pharisees" as in opposition to Jesus' disciples. 

And that is a new church is it? That is the great reforma- 
tion of individual responsibility ! 

4. The Evangelists and John himself put it in evidence that 
John's work was merely a cleaner of brush out of the way — a 
herald, whose only value was his heralding some one of real 
value. Luke iii. 16-17, he tells how Christ should baptize 
with the spirit — with fire. That his work therefore would be 



684 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

thorough. His fan is in his hand — he will thoroughly purge 
his floor. See the contrast. Now all prophecy told that Je- 
sus Messiah would suddenly come — suddenly appear in Zion 
— in his house — "sit as a refiner's fire" — "appear in his 
temple" — and as a Repairer, a "Restorer" — so here he 
" thoroughly purges his floor" — casts out the bond woman 
with her sons of mere ritualistic religion — who " stumble," 
"fall," are " broken ofl"" — "cast away" — he " thoroughly pur- 
ges" his church, sits "as a refiner of gold." But where does 
he make a new church, a new floor, while purging the old 
one. It is only in this way he makes all things new. 

The good Doctor told us, while so warmed over John's min- 
istry, that he told them "they could not inherit religion !" Did 
he? And that was his new mission ! So we understand that 
when Moses preached — "Love God with all your soul, mind, 
heart, strength, your neighbor as yourself," it simply meant 
you naturally inherit these elements of character and disposi- 
tions of heart. When David prayed (Psalm li. 1, 2, 7, 10) — 
"blot out my iniquities, wash me thoroughly from mine ini- 
quity, and cleanse me from my sin. Purge me with hyssop, 
wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow. Create" — what 
a strong word I — "create in me a clean heart." Ah, says Dr. 
Graves, in that day all that was matter ot inheritance, it came 
like Dogberry's learning to write — of nature. 

Isaiah tells them though their sins be as scarlet — red like 
crimson — yet they should be as wool — white as snow. God 
would be merciful to their unrightousness, and their sins and 
iniquities he would remember no more. "Seek the Lord 
while be may be found ; call upon him while he is near. Let 
the wicked forsake his way, the unrighteous man his thoughts, 
and let him turn unto the Lord, who will have mercy upon him, 
and to our God, and he will abundantly pardon." Wh}^, says 
Dr. Graves, all that comes by nature, by inheritance. That is 
nothing to what our Harbinger did — he said, "I baptize you 
with water unto repentance !" Dr. Graves, do you believe 
that the religion of Abel, Enoch, Abraham, Moses, Elijah, 
David, Isaiah, etc., etc., was not as we now have it, but a mere 
inheritance of the flesh ? iTo you don't. Then why not stand 



Infant Baptism. 685 

up for God's truth if it does crush your errors ? Does not 
Paul tell us that we, Abraham and David are all pardoned in 
exactly the same way ? Rom. iv. 2-9. Does he not add then 
that we Gentiles are justified as was Abraham, and hence 
"walk in the steps" — how very precise — Yes, sir, "in the steps 
of that faith of our father Abraham" — "who is [thus becomes] 
the father of us all." verse 16. Why then seek to make so 
damaging a charge against, and fix a blot on the character of 
the Almighty, merely to support an untenable dogma ? Why 
talk about religion "coming down by genealogy?" That 
Pharisees should err is one thing, but that God should have so 
blundered and pretended to teach for 4,000 years that religion 
"came down by genealogy," is vastly difierent. 

On John iii. 4-7 : "Except a man be born of water and the 
Spirit," we deny to to see {edein) means there, "to form a con- 
ception" — be "born from above to see it," for many reasons. 

1. It saj^s "be born of the water and the Spirit," and this to. 
enter into the kingdom. The water here, which you make 
baptism, precedes the birth of the Spirit. "Except a man be 
born of water and the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom," etc. So that destroys your interpretation and applica- 
tion in toto. Edein here means to enjoy, participate in. Hence 
we propose to examine this whole context and see its true 
import. 

John iii, 5 — Born of Water and Spirit. 

Immersionists sometimes appeal to John iii, 5; "Except a 
man {tis^ any one) be born of {ex i. e. ek) water and of the 
Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God," to prove 
that envelopment in water, and proceeding out of it, is here 
alluded to, and favors their theory. To this we reply, 

1. If ''horn ^' {genncBthce) here implies proceeding out of 
the element, it proves too much ; for he is ^^born of water and 
the Spirit.''' Does it mean the unregenerate were enveloped 
in the Spirit, and to be born of it, is to emerge out of it, 
be out of its influence. We thought it implied just the re- 
verse. Hence, this is fatal to the immersion theory. 
i ; 2> The word "born" used of spiritual matters has no al- 



686 'J'he Great Carrollton Debate. 

lusion whatever to natural birth as to female relation, but al- 
ways to the male relation, and is rendered more properly by 
A. Campbell, Anderson and others, in most of its occurrences, 
" begotten.^' It is born or begotten of God, of the Spirit. It 
relates wholly to the spiritual process by which a new and 
higher life is imparted to us by God's Spirit. It is foolish and 
coarse to run the analogy between it and natural birth. Hence 
3. The Jews used the phrase, "born of circumcision." — 
That is, they received circumcision. We are begotten of the 
Spirit when it is shed on us, poured upon us. We are born 
of the w^ater, it marks or indicates a transition to spiritual 
life as a symbol, when the water is poured on us in baptism. 

We feel it a duty here, though not germain to our subject, to 
give what we believe to be the true meaning of this noted and 
much abused part of Scripture. 

John hi, />, Explained. 

The Rabbi meets Christ at night, a favorable time to com- 
municate with him alone perhaps, for two reasons. (1). To 
frankly admit that the Eabbis felt the force of his claims in 
the miricles he performed. (2). To learn all he could about 
his mission. Hence he 833^3 we know thou art a teacher come 
from God — i. e. from above. Christ replies solemnly, "Except 
any one {tis) be born from above {another, \i never means ' again '), 
he cannot (edein) enjoy the kingdom of God." A spiritual birth 
is necessary to see into and enjoy the mysteries of God's king- 
dom. See Psalms li, 10-12, 15; cxix, 18. Ezek. xxxvi, 25, 
26, etc. Jer. xxxi, 31. 

Mcodemus may have alluded (verse 4j to natural birth be- 
cause that introduced Jews into the kingdom, aliens had not 
these privileges except by adoption into the Jewish kingdom. 
Jesus then replies "Except any one be born of water and of the 
Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." That is to 
say, you Jews, being members of the kingdom, must be born 
from above to enjoy and realize its benefits, and the law de- 
mands of every alien baptism and a spiritual birth on enter- 
ing it. 

That we may now discover the true meaning of this, let us 
see the errors of the parties giving it applications it will not 



Infant Baptism. 687 

bear. We freely admit 1. That every leading word is more or 
less ambiguous — capable of various renderings. Hence it is 
unsafe to rest one's faith on any dogmatic view of the subject. 
(1). Gennao (gennao) is rendered born and begotten by all 
immersionists. (2) Water is held by Calvin, Beza, Zwingle, 
etc., to refer to spiritual life, not baptism. (3) Others that it is 
Jewish baptism, (4) Others, that it is Christian baptism. (5) It, 
to our mind, clearly refers to Jewish proselyte baptism. (6) The 
kingdom is referred to the Christian visible church by many 
(7) By many it is referred to the general church. (8) By oth- 
ers, to the kingdom of heaven. (9) By others to the church 
below and that above. If naen differ so widely on three of the 
words of the text — nine different views — is it not unsafe to risk 
our faith on any view of it? but look to other passages free 
from doubt. 

2. We must notice the contrast between verses 3 and 5 — 
see, enter into. Verse 3 barely implies that the birth from 
above is necessary to enjoy the kingdon. Yerse 5 declares 
being born of water and the Spirit necessary to enter into the 
kingdom. Why this great change, from enjoy the benefit of 
as see (edein) implies and means here to enter into, where bap- 
tism comes in. 

This brings up a question of fact, historic facts. (1) It was 
not a fact that Jews had to be born of water and the Spirit to 
enter into the kingdom. No birth of water was necessary to 
enter the Jewish church, to a Jew. As A. Campbell often says, 
they were born members of that kingdom." Christ and Paul 
recognize the fact, e. g. Math. viii,ll, 12; xxi, 43; Eph. ii, II, 
12, 19; Rom. xi, 24. All admit this fact, I believe. 

(2). The Jews of Christ's day were familiar with the phrase, 
"kingdon of God" — "of heaven." Luke xiv, 15; xxiii, 42: 
i, 33, and said of those baptized— they are as "a bahe, new horny 

3. Can this refer to entering the Christian church, as some 
rituals {ours e. g.) and A. Campbell and his people teach ? 
And does it imply, as the latter party contend that baptism 
is an indispensable condition to entering the church and to be- 
ing saved? This view is harsh and absurd, and is always 
abandoned whenever its advocates press the matter; for to 



688 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

say that all unbaptized—especially as held by this party — all im- 
mersed people are damned, will meet with little support when 
the issue is squarely presented. If they adhere to it, then (1) All 
infants, heathens, etc., are damned. (2) All adults are damned 
though they be the holiest, purest, most devoted of men. This 
is the reverse of all Christ's teaching. (3) It contradicts the 
views of "the Disciples" and A Campbell, in that the parties 
had to "be born of the water and of the Spirit before en- 
tering the kingdom. But they unanimously teach the 
Spirit is not given to any but the immersed. 

That we cannot receive the Spirit till pardoned — not par- 
doned till immersed, in which immersiom the penitent be- 
liever is introduced into the kingdon, then receives the Spirit 
through the word. Hence their own dogmas directly contra- 
dict the verse. 

4. The tenth verse shows that it was a historic Bible fact 
Christ was expounding. "Art thou a master of Israel — lit- 
erally art thou (ho didashalos) the teacher of Israel and know 
not these things?" How could Christ rebuke "the teacher of 
Israel" for ignorance of the being "born of water and of the 
Spirit" unless the fact were familiar to Jews — a well under- 
stood doctrine of their law and practices? Hence it could not 
refer to a future matter, not yet taught and acted on. 

Indeed that is absurd. To suppose Christ, aside from this 
verse, to be dealing dishonestly, is far from creditable to him. 
It was not an unknown, future matter. He so earnestly 
presses, but' an existing fact. Every word is in the present 
tense — a present necessity — "Ye must be born from above." 
"That which is born of the flesh, is born of the Spirit," not 
shall be, three vears and six months hence ! "The wind blow- 
eth '^ * thou hearest" — present tense. "So is every one 
that is born of the Spirit" — a present truth. 

In verses 14, 15, 16, Christ tells "the teacher" just what he, 
and all men, must do to secure this principle of eternal 
life that begets the same in us, whence the new life begins, 
and we are born of God as in all ages believers were. John 
i, 12, 13 ; 1 Cor. x. 3, 4. 

We have these points made out then — 



Infant Baptism. 689 

1. Christ does not refer to Christian baptism. 

2. He does not refer to the common Jewish baptism, for it 
was not a condition of entering the church. 

3. Yet it does refer to an existing fact. Hence, 

4. Unquestionably he refers to Jewish proselyte baptism. 
This is evident. 

1. Because it is not true of, and will not apply to any other 
view advanced or that can be adva... < d, yet 

2. It does perfectly apply to it. It disposes of all the diffi- 
culties, all the ambiguities complained of. 

A proselyte or Gentile could not enter the kingdom, as the 
Jews used the term, without baptism. But it is objected that 
the Bible nowhere required baptism of proselytes, and it 
was a later matter — of the third century after Christ. This 
shows the same superficial view of baptism and the whole 
baptismal question we will so often have to expose. God 
would not allow the Jews after Egyptian bondage to enter 
covenant without purification. The priests had to be baptized 
before entering on duties, Ex. xxx. 18-22. Every one defiled 
had to baptize, l^nm. xix. 9-22; Heb. ix. 10, 13, 19, 21; 
Mark xii. 4, etc. The Jews in Christ's day would not enter 
the public hall lest defilement disqualify for the Passover the 
next day. Is it reasonable that such a people, in Christ's day 
would allow Gentiles, the touch of whom required Jews to 
baptize, (Mark vii. 3-4; J^um. xix. 9-22; Lev. xi. 28-36, etc.,) 
to enter the church unbaptized ? Notning could be more 
absurd. The objection of Baptist writers, and M. Stuart 
against the existence of proselyte baptism as we call it in 
Christ's day is most trifling. It is that Onkelos, Philo and 
Josephus do not name it. But neither do several Targums 
that were written years after all agree it did exist, viz : as 
early as A. D. 220. Jonathan Ben Uzziel never names it. 
Nay, Eusebuis A. D. 338 never names it, nor do any of the 
fathers of -Q-ve or six centuries though they treated on baptism, 
on Jewish aflairs and ecclesiastical matters generally. Socra- 
tes, Theoderet, Evagrius, Sazoman, — writing in the fifth and 
sixth centuries the historv of ecclesiastical matters, nsver 

name it. .^ 

4o 



690 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

How absurd then to object to, and reject it, because tbese 
three men did not name it. Onkelos could not, for he gives 
us simply a rigid translation of the Hebrew text into Chaldee. 
Yet this is the only argument against its existing in Christ's 
day ! ! 

Christ does not object to the practice, but on the absolute 
importance of the spiritual birth. Nay, while he simply al- 
ludes to the customary baptism as a condition of entering the 
Jewish church, he five times introduces or reiterates the im- 
portance of the spiritual birth. It is an eternal truth, not a 
mere custom, or Jewish law. Being an established principle 
of Jewish law, all Jews being in, but not enjoying, for want of 
spiritual life, the kingdom, every Gentile — " any one" not in 
it, had to be born of water and the Spirit to enter and enjoy 
the kingdom. The [edein) alread ysettled must not be dropped 
here at verse 5, but the two held together, so that to be bap- 
tized was necessary to entrance into the Jewish church, as a 
proselyte, and be born of the Spirit to enjoy its benefits. 
Then we have each word explained, and the force of it all. 

Every proselyte had to renounce his Gentilism, profess faith 
in, and devotion to the God of the Hebrews — in him, as a 
Spirit, quickening and saving. Hence, Christ simply states an 
existing fact, in John iii. 5, nothing more. It was no dogma 
given to the church. Christ warns earnestly against trusting 
in the fleshly ordinance, verse 6, — " that which is born of the 
flesh (fleshly ordinance) is flesh" — man's body, circumcision as 
well as baptism, are called flesh. See Gal. iii. 3-6. 

"We have presented to you our views of this noted passage. 
]N'o other explanation can we conceive of, that meets its lan- 
guage grammatically and fairly, will accord with the facts and 
intent of Scripture teaching. 

And now we have been debating this proposition into the 
third day, and where has the Doctor made a point ? 

Our position still stands. There is the church, Stephen 
calls it the church, Paul calls it the church, David a hun- 
dred times calls it the church, Joel calls it the church, Je- 
hovah calls it the church, Christ applies the words, the 



Infant Baptism. 691 

church, to its local congregations twice — Math, xviii. 17, 
using it as it daily was used by the Jews for centuries. 

Infants were in it. They received its ordinances. Let him 
now show where it was destroyed. See the words : cast out, 
fall away, rejected, cut off, stumbled, of accessions, added ; 
all these terms occur in Apostolic records ; he was to thor- 
oughly purge his floor, come into his temple quickly, 
^'strengthen the stakes, lengthen the cords," as we do to en- 
large a tent, for "the place is too narrow," by reason of the 
incoming of the Gentiles. Is. xlix. entire e. g., Rom. ix and 
X, entire, and Eph. ii. 16-20, thus he said, "I will establish, 
confirm my church." Math. xvi. 18. Where has he succeeded 
in showing its destruction and a de novo new one in its place ? 
He can't do it. 

Dr. Graves says John iii. 5, "is the law for entering the 
Christian church." It does not name any church. It is not 
Christian baptism. Yet he puts his construction in the most 
metaphorical language possible, and lays that down as the law 
of Christ's church. 

We ask now : 

1. Where did John, the Harbinger, ever organize the 
church ? 

2. Where did he organize and officer any congregations ? 

3. Where did Christ, during his personal ministry, organize 
and officer churches t—[Time out. 



692 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SIXTH REPLY. 



[Note by Reporter. — As Dr. Graves was about to commence, Eld, 
Ditzler m.otioned him to his seat, where a short conference was held, at 

the conclusion of which. Eld. Ditzler arose and said : 

"We have agreed not to debate the question of the Covenants further, as 
I here express my conviction that the Covenants of the Old Testament 
have nothing to do with Infant Baptism." 

Dr. Graves — " I want it to be recorded along side of that frank admis- 
sion, that I am rejoiced to hear him say this. The Old Testament Cove- 
nants have been the basis of this rite heretofore, and I am glad this ground 
is at last abandoned by Methodists. So much is gained by this discus- 
sion. From this day onward, so long as Eld. Ditzler bears the endorse- 
ment of the Bishops of his church, that he, is a representative of then- 
docti'ines, let no Methodist Elder or preacher in all the South, ever go 
back to the old covenants with Abraham, or the Jews, to find a ground for 
Infant Baptism. I was never better prepared to discuss the covenants, 
one and all, than now, but Eld. Ditzler has at last fully sm-rendered them. 
I close the Old Testament ' ' 

After this mutual explanation, Dr. Graves commenced his sixth reply.] 



Mr. President: — The entire argument from the Old Testa- 
ment being openly surrendered — for, independent of, and 
without its covenants, there could be no church, visible 
church; and with an invisible or ideal one, we have nothing 
to do — I shall, leaving the multitude of side issues, of which 
his last speech was made up, now open the ]^ew Testament. 

New Testament Argument. 

After wandering through the shadows of the typical dis- 
pensations for 4000 years, in vain search of an inference or 
analogy to support the humanly invented rite of infant baptism, 
we at last emerge into the glorious sunrise of the 'New 
Gospel Dispensation. We can now rise into the sun, like the 
symbolized church, seen by John, in Patmos, and leave the 
moon and the stars — all types and shadows — under our feet. 



Infant Baptism. 693 

Christ tells us, not to our misleading, that " the law," i. e., the 
Covenant at Sinai, with all its rites, etc., "and the prophets," 
the burden of whose song was the Messiah and his Kingdom 
that was to come — " w^ere until John, since which time the 
Kingdom of heaven" — the true Kingdom, the true Church, 
of which the old Jewish Kingdom, or Commonwealth, was 
but a type, as Paul tells us, " is preached, and all men press Into 
it." This is the church we have so long been in search of — 
" the true tabernacle which the Lord Jesu3 pitched, and not 
man. Here is where we should have commenced last Satur- 
day morning. 

We open the J^ew Testament, and lo ! and behold all old 
things have passed away, and all things have become new. 
My eye rests upon the new covenant, founded upon better 
promises. A new priest — the one mediator of the I^ew 
Testament Covenant, who comes to offer 

^^ A saerifice of nobler name, 
And richer blood than they" 

could offer, under the old, and I meet here a new law, 
which constitutes a new government, a new man, which is a 
new church — the real and substantial, as opposed to the 
typical and shadowy — a kingdom and church, no longer com- 
posed of one carnal race and blood, as the typical^ but of all 
nations and kindred, and blood, that dwell on the face of the 
whole earth, and 3'et of one race, the seed of Abraham, and 
of one blood, kindred each of Jesus Christ. 

There was, indeed, a change of priesthood, from the family 
of Levi to that of Judah ; from the human to the divine, from 
the typical to the real and the true; a change of the sacrifices^ 
from the bestial to divine^ from the blood of bulls and of goats, 
that availed nought to the sanctifying of the worshipper, but 
brought sin continually to remembrance, to the blood of the 
everlasting Covenant of Redemption — now prominently brought 
forward and ratified, which cleanseth from all sin. Paul tells 
us expressly that a change of the priesthood necessitates a 
change of the law. The Mosaic or Jewish Dispensation alone 
was purely legal. He that did the things commanded, was 
to live by them^ but cursed be every one that contii uath noi 



694 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

in all things written in the book of the law to do them. The 
law was given by Moses, but grace and truth bv Jesus Christ. 
Because, of its legal character, it was faulty, it could save no 
one, for no one could fulfill its demands ; but it had had a 
purpose to fulfill ; it was added to the Covenant of Promise 
Q-od made with Abraham, " because, of transgressions, till the 
seed," Christ, should come, so that the law, that whole ceremo- 
nial dispensation, the nation and its worship, was a '^pai^agagos, 
a guiding slave to lead us to Christ, or until Christ; i. e. until 
was brought in, the ^ew Dispensation of Grace by faith. 

But says the apostle, after that faith is come we are no longer 
under a guiding slave, for are we not all the children of God by 
faith in Christ Jesus ? — for all who were immersed into Christ 
did put on Christ — there is no longer Jew nor Greek, there 
is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female, for 
ye are all one in Christ Jesus, and if ye be Christ's then are ye 
[whether Jew or Gentile, male or female, bond or free]. 
Abraham's seed and heirs, according to the promise. Gal. iii. 
24-29 [all the spiritual blessings promised to Abraham.] Here 
we see the utter abolishment of the old Jewish Dispensation 
with the church, whether real or typical, that was originated 
by it, with all the ceremonial law, rights and prerogatives 
claimed by the Jews, and the N^ew Dispensation and the true 
tabernacle and church of the living God takes its place — the 
only condition of entering which is faith and baptism. 

I maintain therefore, against the teachings of all those w^ho 
would Judaize Christianity, that with the ministry of John and 
Christ, the old Jewish Dispensation — even call it a church if 
you will, or what 3^ou please, with its constitution and laws^ 
with all its hereditary religious privilege — was abolished ; had 
waxed old and w^as ready to vanish away, that the old skins 
of the law were not designed to hold the new wine of the Gos- 
pel, nor was the old rotten, legal garment made by Moses, 
designed to be patched by the new garments of righteous- 
ness wrought out by Jesus Christ. With the covenant of the 
old Dispensation, with its rites, its ordinances and hereditary, 
religious privileges, the heirs of the J^ew Covenant, and the 
citizens of the new kingdom^ neither parents nor children have 



Infant Baptism. 695 

anything to do. If they would fain graft any part of the old upon 
the new, if they inevitably entangle themselves in a yoke of 
bondage and lose that liberty wherewith Christ has made us 
free. — Let me read Pauls's reproof of the Judaizing teachers 
of his day. — Read Gal. i. 6--9 and 3. through, and chap. iv. 17 
to seventh verse of v.] 

The old constitution of things — the law with all its appurten- 
ances, circumcision with all its entailed rights and privileges, 
birth and blood, hereditary descent, with all its fancied claims 
upon the visible church of Christ under the 'New Covenant 
and its J^ew Dispensation, and the ordinances of the Christian 
church are forever blasted and belted by the keen ax of indi- 
viduality and personal responsibility so vigorously used upon 
them when they were so confidently brought forward and 
urged by the scribes and Pharisees who came and demanded 
the baptism of the ISTew Dispensation for themselves and their 
children doubtless also, at the hands of the Harbinger. 

Hear his stunning words and let all those Judaized Chris- 
tians of this day who plead for the baptism of their infants^ — 
by nature an impure race — upon their fancied connection with 
Abraham and his covenant, read Matt. iii. 7--13. 

"7. But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees come to his 
baptism, he said unto them, O generation of vipers, who hath warned you 
to tiee from the wrath to come? 

8. Bring forth therefore fruits meet for repentance : 

9. And think not to say within yourselves, We have Abraham to our 
father : for I say unto you, that God is able of these stones to raise up 
children unto Abraham. 

10. And now also the ax is laid unto the root of the trees : therefore 
every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast 
into the fire. 

11. I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance : but he thatcom- 
eth after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear : he 
shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire : 

12. Whose fan is in his hand, and he will thoroughly purge his floor, 
and gather his wheat into tlie garner; but he will burn up the chaff with 
unquenchable fire. 



696 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

"Wrath to come"- -do you hear that ? Do you say that 

those exposed to the wrath to come are innocent, morally fit 

for heaven or the Church of Christ ? ]^ow hear the prayer 

Eld. Ditzler uses wheu he is al^out to sprinkle one of his ''inno- 
cent" babes 

" Almighty and everlasting God, we beseech thee for thine infinite mer- 
cies, that thou wilt look upon this child, : wash him and sanctity Mm with 
the Holy Ghost ; that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received 
into the ark of Christ's Church." 

This by way of parenthesis. 

Here is the gospel of the ne^v kingdom. Here are tersely 
and clearly set forth the only conditions for the most eminent 
and holy of Abraham's seed to enter the kingdom, or secure 
its initiatory rite — the very least of its gracious privileges. 
The priesthood being changed there must of necessity be a 
change of law. Why do our States have conventions but to 
change their Constitutions, and where there is a chaugeof the 
Constitution is there not, of necessity, a change of the law ? 
Tell me, ye who who desire to be under the Jewish Dispensa- 
tion, were the Constitution of the State changed, would you 
look into the old or the 7iew for the law, or the principles upon 
which future laws are to be made ? Had your father died leav- 
ing two testaments or wills which would you claim under ? 
So I ask you as Christians, for all you are to believe for salva- 
tion, and for all you are to practice for the obedience of faith, 
are you to look back into the Old Testament — the Old Con- 
stitution — the Old Jewish Dispensation which was only typical 
of the new, will you look to the ignorant slave boy whose 
office was to lead to the school house and the teacher, or wHll 
you open the 'New Constitution — the New Testament — the 
New Will, and be governed entirely by its laws and require- 
ments? They ma}^ zealously affect you who would turn you 
back to the Law, hut it is not in a good cause. 

Why do you cling to the old abolished and superseded law, 
to learn your duty under the new covenant of Grace? Why 
not accept the better hope it introduced, for there is verily » 
disannulling of the covenant going before, for the weak- 
ness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made noth- 



Infant Baptism. 697 

ing perfect, but the bringing in of abetter hope did "by which 
we draw nigh unto God." — Heb. vii, 10. 

Here is the new covenant whose dispensation John an- 
nounced and introduced, and upon which the visible church is 
constituted. Read Hebrews vii,7-9, as follows : 

7. ' Tor if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have 
been sought for the second. 

8. "For finding fault with them, he saith. Behold, the days come, saith 
the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and 
with the house of Judah : 

9. "JSTot according to the covenant that I made with their fathers, in 
the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of 
Egypt ; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them 
not, saith the Lord." 

To its glorious privileges and company w^e are come. Hear 
Paul. Heb. xii. 22-26.' 

The most prominent members of the old church, their re- 
ligious teachers, demand the baptism of the new church on the 
ground that they are the children of Abraham — Simeon, nor 
Anna, nor Mary, nor Elizabeth, nor Zachariah became members 
of the Church of Christ without baptism. 

How does John meet them? Does he tell them they are 
already members in good standing; that his baptism is but a 
substitute for circumcision or proselyte baptism, and they, 
therefore, do not need his, but only accept Christ and all is well ? 
Would he receive Nicodemus, a truly pious, honest man and 
a noted Rabbi and member of the vSanhedrim? ^o, none of 
this. He demanded of one and diW, jpersonal repentance towards 
God and faith in the Messias, as a condition of baptism, and 
they must give him the proper evidences, proofs of their repen- 
tance. 

The question can be decided right here as we stand with our 
foot upon the threshold of the new dispensation, and witness 
John under his divine commission, preparing the material 
for the new spiritual house, which Christ the son of David 
came to build, under the covenant that God had made with 
David, saying : " Thy son, who shall come after thee, he shall 
build the house of thy Kingdom." 

John the Baptist was sent to make ready a people pre- 



698 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

pared for the Lord. The change required was to be a change 
in them, as well as a change of ordinances. But if those who 
were made ready by John were initiated by baptism into the 
Jewish church, his baptism being only a continuation of pros- 
elyte baptism, then did not they enter that church by two ini- 
tiatory rites — circumcision and baptism? If they were in- 
itiated into the Christian church by his baptism, then was not 
his baptism a Christian rite ? If they were initiated by John's 
baptism, into neither the Jewish nor the Christian church, 
were they ever members of the Christian church? If so, by 
IV horn, ivhen, and by what rite did they enter it ? 

I most respectfully request Elder Ditzler to give his especial 
attention to the above questions. I call upon you either to 
answer them, or to confess that you cannot answer them and 
save infant baptism. The eyes of thousands of Methodists 
and tens of thousands of Baptists are now directed 
towards vou. You have elicited this discussion ; vou have 
lately issued a book in which you declare the question of in- 
fant membership is vital to the very existence of the church. 
Certainly you will confront the above questions promptly and 
fairly. If you fail to do so; if you plead some frivolous ex- 
cuse, the unanimous verdict of all candid Christians will be, 
that you feel yourself unequal to the task. 

I am bound to admit that the most learned and candid por- 
tion of your scholars, repudiate the idea of church 
identity, and frankly admit that John, in all probability, bap- 
tized no infants. 

The Rev. Dr. Hodge, Professor in Princeton Theological 
Seminary, who is one of the firmest upholders and defenders 
of Presbyterianism (0. S.) in America, takes Baptist ground, 
in the Princeton Review (Oct. '52), respecting the Abrahamic 
Covenant and the relation of the church to the world : 

" When Christ came, the commonwealth ivas abolished, and there was 
nothing put in its place The Church remained. There was no external 
covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external 
rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society, with spiritual prom- 
ises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the ^New Testa- 
ment, is any other condition of membership in the Chm'ch prescribed 
than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired 



Infant Baptism. 699 

baptism: "If thou believest with all thy heart, thou may est. And he 
answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.' The 
Church, therefore, is, in its essential nature, a oompany of believers ; and 
not an external society, requmng merely external profession as the condi- 
tion of membership." 

S. T. Coleridge, the admirable scholar, and England's 

greatest thinker, bears this testimony : 

"Had baptism of infants at that early period of the Gospel been a 
known practice, or had this been previously demonstrated, then, indeed, 
the argument that in all probability there was one or more infants or 
young children in so large a family, would be no otherwise objectionable 
than as being superfluous, and a sort of anti-cUmax in logic. But if the 
words are cited as the proof, it would be a clear petitio principii ; though 
there had been nothing else against it. . . . Equally vain is the pre- 
tended analogy from circumcision, which is no sacrament at all, but the 
means and mark of .national distinction." 

Moses Stuart— the great American scholar and Commentator, ex- 
pressly declares on the Old Testament, chap. 22) — "How unwary, too, are 
many excellent men, in contending for infant baptism, on the ground of 
the Jewish analogy of circumcision ! Are females not proper subjects of 
baptism ? And again, are a man's slaves to be all baptized because he is ? 
Are they church-members of course, when they are so baptized ? Is there 
no difference between engrafting into a politico-ecclesiastical community 
and into one of which it is said, that it is not of this world ? In short, 
numberless difficulties present themselves in our way, as soon as we begin 
to argue in such a manner as this." 

"The covenant of circumcision affords" [this means church identity], "no 
ground for infant baptism." — Quoted from Jowett. 

Venema (see Psed. Exam. v. 2, p. 468.) — "Circumcision was a seal of 
the righteousness of faith, as the apostle aflQrms ; but this only in respect 
of such Israelites as were believers." 

Chahnock (v. 2, p. 781.) — "God seals no more than he promises He 
promises only to faith, and therefore, only seals to faith. Covenant graces 
therefore, must be possessed and acted, before covenant blessings be rati- 
fied to us." 

AuGUSTi, (7, p. 329.) — "The parallel between circumcision and baptism 
is altogether foreign to the New Testament." 

Prof. Lange, speaking on this point, says, this comparison is without 
foundation, because "the only circumcision of the gospel dispensation, is, 
according to Paul, that of the heart." 

Paulus, in his Commentary. — "The parallel of circumcision with bap- 
tism is inapposite; for by circumcision, one was received into the nation 
as such, not to a religious faith." 

Mr. Marshall. — " Both John's and Christ's disciples and apostles did 
teach before they baptized, because then no others were capable of bap- 
tism.', — Quoted from Booth, p. 303. 



yoo The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Dr. Wall. — " There is no express mention, indeed, of any children bap- 
tized by him, i. e., John." — Introduction, p. 27. 

Mr.Burkitt. — John's baptism was the baptism of repentance, of which 
infants are incapable." — See Commentary on Matt. xix. 13-15. 

Mr. Thos. Scott. — " It does not appear that any but adults were bap- 
tized by John." — See Commentary on Matt. iii. 5-6. 

J. G. Manly. — (Pedobabtistj — " Judaism had no church, either national 
or otherwise." "The stereotyped verbiage and trauscriptive absurdity 
of justifying national churchism by Judaism, should at once and forever 
cease." 'No one that understands the relation of Christianity to Juda- 
ism, can suppose for a moment that the former is, or ought to be, modeled 
after the latter. The better is not moulded by the less. The superior and 
permanent is not copied from the inferor and abrogated. Day is not the 
imitation of moonlight. Antitypes do not take their shape and hue from 
types. If Judaism is to be om' model, we ought to abolish the churchy and 
make the nation every thiug." — Eccle., pp. 222, 223. 

Mr. Payne, on evidences of the popish mass, says, " I come now to 
the New Testament, where, if there be any proofs of the sacrifices of the 
mass, it is more hkely to find them than in the Old; yet they produce 
twice as many more, such as they are, out of that than this, and, like some 
other persons, are more beholden to dark types and obscure projyhecies of the 
Old Testament to make out their principles, than to the clear Ught of the 
gospel, and to any plain places in the New ; and yet, if any such doctrine 
as this were to be received by Christians, and if any such wonderful and 
essential part of worship were appointed by Christ, or taught and practised 
by the apostles, we should sm'ely have it more plainly set down in the 
New Testament than they were able to shew it." — Pres. ag. Po., p. 64. 

Mr. Gee teaches that a defence of papal superstitions is, that our "wor- 
ship must be of the same nature and kind with the Jewish worship, 
because it was to succeed it." 

So says Eld. Ditzler. Their children were in the church 
and ours must be. 

B. H. Cooper's words are as applicable to infant baptism as 
to religious establishments. He says : 

" It is in vain, therefore, to cite the precedent of the Jewish theocracy 
in defence of rehgious establishments ; and to whine out the complaint 
that to antiquate this precedent is to rob a Christian king of his only chart 
of duty which might direct him in his capacity of a sovereign." — Free 
Ch., etc., pp. 63, 64. 

Dr. J. Stagey, — (Methodist). — "Baptism and the Lord's Supper .... 
were not Jewish, but Christian — not a brief continuation of the past, but a 
regulative commencement of the future. They were not observed as 
modified rites of an old, but as distinguished signs of anew dispensation." 
—The Sac, p. 272; 



Infant Baptism. 701 

J. A. James. — " As to the argument which is founded upon the Consti- 
tution of the Jewish Theocracy, we consider it so irrelevant and inappli- 
cable, that the very attempt to bring it forward in support of a Christian 
institute, betrays at once the weakness of the cause." — On. Diss., p. 10. 

Bishop Sherlock. — "I will never admit of a mere consequence to 
prove an institution, which must be delivered, in plain terms, as all laws 
ought to be."— Prs. ag. Po., vol. ii. App., p. 23. 

Dr. J. Stoughton. — " A Christian church, in some of its most essen- 
tial points, was, after all, a perfectly new institute, in immeasurable ad- 
vance of anything which the Jews before had witnessed, or been taught 
to conceive." — Ages of Chris., p. 37. 

Also in Ecclesia he says : 

" The Jewish church was in certain respects, and those the most charac- 
teristic and striking, so utterly difierent from the churches instituted by the 
Apostles, that a combination of the principles of the first, with the principles 
of the second, is simply impossible. New Testament precedents may be set 
aside for the sake of adopting Old Testament examples] — the system 
pursued by the early Christians may be exchanged for the system 
practised by the House of Israel ; but the one can never be modified by the 
other. It is a question not of modification, but of revolution ; as we see 
at once when we compare the principal features of the one, with what 
were the prominent marks of the other" — (p. 20). Again (p. 22), " Can 
the ecclesiastical constitution of Judaism be harmoniously incorporated 
with the Apostolic institutions of Christianity ? The true answer is un- 
questionably in the negative." 

Robinson — in Lexicon of New Testament. — John baptized a baptism of 
repentance^ i. e., by which THOSE WHO RECEIVED IT ACKNOWLEDGED THE 
DUTY OF REPENTANCE." 

An infant of course could not do this. 

The above scholars, we repeat, are and were as devoted to 
the interests of infant baptism as yourself or any other man, 
and it is not supposable that they would so frankly and ex- 
plicitly repudiate the argument drawn from the identity of the 
Churches — the Covenants of Circumcision and Grace, or 
deny that John baptized the infant children of believers, could 
they have discovered the least ground whatever for an oppo- 
site belief. I shall regard these three points as settled, until 
you refute them. i. e : 

1. The Christian Church is not a continuation of the Jewish common- 
wealth or church. 

2. That baptism did not come in the room of circumcision. 

3. That John baptized no infants. 

Those who received the teachings of John, or Christ, were 



702 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

far from dictating to tliem how things must, or must not be, 
ought or ought not be, or the people would become infidel. 

But has it never occurred to you that the Pharisees and 
lawyers did reject the baptism of John, for the identical rea- 
son that pedobaptists now reject it — because he would not 
receive them as the children of believing parents, but repudi- 
ated all their claims and rights based upon the old Abrahamic 
Covenant or Church ? For this very reason Pedobaptists re- 
ject the doctrines of baptism held by Baptists ! What food 
for reflection ! 

Because John did not acknowledge the identity of their 
Covenants, churches, and rites, the Jews rejected the coun- 
sel of God against themselves, by refusing his baptism ! And 
do not Pedobaptists reject our doctrines and baptism for 
the same reason ? and do they not also reject the counsel of 
God because it is of God s appointment and command ? and is 
it not against themselves ? 

I pray God everj^ Pedobaptist Christian who hears me this 
day, may be influenced to reflect. 

Refutation. 

Arg. XX. If teaching, so as to secure repentance and faith is re- 
quired, by Christ before baptism — as the most learned and candid of 
Pedobaptists themselves admit, then to baptize before teaching, repent- 
ance and faith is to alter and pervert the Word of God, which is to incur 
the displeasure of God and endanger the salvation of men. 

But all those who practice Infant Baptism, do baptize before they secure 
repentance and faith by teaching. 

Ergo. — They do pervert the Word of God and endanger the salva- 
tion of men. 

Arq. XXI. If men were not to presume to alter anything how- 
ever minute in rites or ceremonies under the law, neither to add to, nor 
take from them, without incurring the displeasure of God, and if He is 
as strict and jealous of his worship under the gospel, then men cannot 
alter by adding to the ordinances, under the gospel, without incurring the 
anger and displeasure of God. 

That this is the case read Rev. xxii. 18. But Infant Baptism was never 
instituted by express command or example, or promise, as all candid 
Pedobaptists admit ; therefore, to practice it as a religious rite, and in the 
name of Christ, is to alter, by adding to His words. 

Ergo. — We are bound to conclude that those who do so, incur the anger 



Infant Baptism. 703 

and judgments of God — the plague of the book will be added to those who 
do it willingly, or wilfully, or ignorantly, if they have and can reacl 
His Word. 

Arg. XXII. If there be but one baptism of water, left by Jesus Christ in 
the New Testament, and but one condition or manner of right thereto, 
and that one baptism is that of an adult, and that one condition faith, then 
to teach and practice two baptisms, one of unconscious infants, and one of 
adults, and to make two conditions, one of faith and one without faith, is 
knowingly to alter and pervert, by adding to, the plain law of Christ, and 
can but be impiety and sin in the sight of God. 

But there is but one baptism of water left by Christ in the New Testa- 
ment, and but one condition or manner of right thereto and that one bap- 
tism is that of an adult, as Bichard Baxter and others are free to admit. 
He says, "The way of the Lord is one. One Lord, one faith, one baptism ; 
and faith and repentance is the condition of the adult, and as to any oth- 
er CONDITION, I AM SURE THE SCRIPTURE IS SILENT." And WC kuOW, 

if we have honesty enough to admit that wherever the Scripture specifies 
any one character or condition it prohibits every other. 

Ergo. — Those who practice Infant Baptism do make two baptisms, one 
of adults and one of infants, also two conditions to it, one of faith and 
one without faith, contravening the command of God, and do thus know- 
ingly alter and add to the Word which is a sin in the sight of God. 



704 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — The Doctor quotes Acts ii. 47 — 
only "the saved" added. Of course, only the saved were " ad- 
ded," for so, Carson and A. Campbell all agree th.2Xinfants were 
horn members. So it was not necessary to add them. More- 
over, where, as on Pentecost it was an occasion of great 
uproar and sinners cut to the heart, their conversion is there 
the point presented. Were their infants lost in ^in — unsaved ? 

Dr. Graves, to save himself, urges that John "preached the 
Gospel of the kingdom." That shows it was what he repre- 
sented. Paul tells us as well as Isaiah, "the Gospel was 
preached to Abraham," Gal. iii, 8, and in the wilderness, Heb. 
X. 1, 2, as well as in Isaiah's day, Rom. ix. 15, "the Gospel of 
peace," quoted from Isaiah. So down he comes again. 

He says there is no institution without government, ordi- 
nance's, etc. True, but they had so many, and so much gov- 
ernraeit, " the law of commandments contained in ordinances" 
was taken out of the way. The^^ had just a little too much 
of that kind of thing, instead of being defective. "All things 
are become new." That only refers to individual experience, 
as he knows — "a new creation in Christ Jesus." Is it bv such 
phrases he would destroy what God would not destroy and 
disparage God's holy word? 

He urges that there was a new law, a new man, a new 
church. In all ages a new heart was familiar as the Prophets 
and David show him. But it was the same old church. l!Tew 
converts did not make a new church. They " were added. ' 

Again, let us glance over the facts to avoid confusion 
through the constant quibbling of our opponent. In Moses' 
day all the ceremonies and ordinances came gradually into 
use. At Sinai the law of them was given. But changes had been 
going on since they left Egypt. During the prophetic days Da- 
vid and Solomon, as well as conquests later, introduced vast 



Infant Baptism. 705 

changes in the outward affairs and economy of the church. Yet 
no one contends that any or all of these made it another church 
organization. If then '^ the bringing in" " of all these ex- 
ternals did not (1), destroy the church, and (2) organize a new 
one, (3), on radically different principles, why will the taking of 
them "out of the way" do so? Is not that plain ? The ritu- 
alistic law of ordinances given at Sinai ''waxed old," "made 
nothing perfect," " was added because of transgression" " till 
the time of reformation" — a mere shadow of things to come 
were all its sacrifices — all pointed to Christ. Now trace 
Christ through his ministry. He came in the flesh. John 
preached, pointed to Christ. The Messiah appears — preaches 
between three and four years. After a while, Matt, x., he 
sends out his Twelve to preach. Later he sends seventy more. 
We are not to presume their labor was void of good results. 
Numbers are led to believe. Christ found Simeon, Anna, 
Elizabeth, Zachariah, the Marys, the Twelve, the seventy 
either full of faith and the Spirit, or, as some of them were, 
ready at once to receive him. Gradually he reforms the Jews. 
He is the separating power. Thus he goes on for nearly four 
years, reforming the Jews. But where did he organize a 
church? Where did he build up and establish any separate 
congregations, officer them, and leave a preacher in charge, 
or they call one ? Nothing of the kind takes place anywhere. 
So he closes his ministry on the cross. No distinct church 
and code of separate laws given, but a series of beautiful les- 
sons years afterwards reduced to written formsby his followers, 
who were eye witnesses of his majesty. Where is the new or 
separate church ? Now, for so important a matter we demand 
THE RECORD. Svcn human rights are not treated as you pro- 
pose to treat these tremendous issues. We go by the record: 
We propose no guessing. A fuss, a hurrah, a lot of smoke 
anddust cast into people's eyes donot give records and dates a-nd 
FACTS. God's econom}^ is on trial in this matter before the 
people, and great questions of church rights and privileges. 
Not only are these the records, but we are supported by all 
the facts in all great reforms both (1) by God himslf and (2) 
under His providence by those of great men, such as Moses, 

44 



7o6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Habakkuk, Nehemiah, Paul, Luther, Calvin, Wesley. All 
such reforms are gradual — the changes are gradual — the transi- 
tion regular. 

Christ is crucified. He rises and communicates with the 
apostles and believers now for forty days. 'No new church yet, 
no separate organization of congregations. His apostles were 
told to tarry in Jerusalem till the Spirit came upon them. 
They elect one in Judas' place, is as much a church act as 
any act of their lives. Pentecost finds. (1) the Twelve, (2) the 
hundred, and (3) the great multitude of the pious ones. Acts 
ii. 5-11, and directly three thousand scoffers are converted — 
added — and " daily the Lord adds to the church the saved." 

These apostles, one hundred, twenty, and the multitude of 
devout Jews there who received the Spirit, were members of 
God's church already. If not, when did they become so? 
Was water baptism necessary to it? (1) Not a word has been 
adduced to prove it. (2) There is no record of proof on earth 
where either one of the Twelve, the one hundred twenty, or 
the crowd of devout Jews there was ever baptized b}^ John, or 
by command from Christ. All the proofs point the other way, as 
it is in evidence that a question arose between those baptized 
by John and Jesus, Matt. ix. 14. After Pentecost the apostles 
preach on, frequent the Temple, the synagogue, as well as 
teach in private houses. It is only in Paul's journeys and 
labors among Gentiles, that households, churches in houses, 
occur. This is long years after Pentecost. Such now is the 
plain record. Your new church nowhere appears. John and 
Peter follow Philip to Samaria — Acts viii. 9. 

No, no — there is no record — no proof, and in no court on 
earth could a verdict be secured in favor of one litigant against 
another where human rights were involved, on the kind of 
evidence wholly relied on by my opponent. No man on earth 
would 2^0 into a court with that kind ot evidence. Because it is 
religion, a church question, are we to utterly ignore all the 
rules and laws of evidence — all the facts and records of Bible, 
history, and go on a wild career of speculation, without a 
record of facts, a single truth to support us ? 

The doctor said, [he may not have spoken what he intended] 



Infant Baptism. 707 

"a change of the priesthood changes the priesthood." Does 
he mean that a change of the law of the priesthood changes the 
priesthood? or that a change of the priesthood changes the 
law of the priesthood? Heb. vii. 12. But what has that to do 
with organizing a new church? (1) The coming in of the priests 
and (2) the coming in of the law regulating them, which was 
through weeks or months of time — gradual— did not make a 
new church. Try again, Doctor. 

Do you not see that he, like all his predecessors, has to rely 
on mere special pleading, taking for granted the very thing 
under controversy all the way through? 

Let me call your attention to another fact. If the Jews were 
jealous of anything on earth, it was their rights in the church. 
They sought every opportunity possible to entrap Jesus and 
the apostles. They even accused them of speaking against 
the Temple, because he predicted its fall. Paul was repeatedly 
arrested, tried in open court, and they brought all the charges 
they could against him. See Acts xxii. 1-19, xxiii. 6-10; xxv. 
8; xxvi. 2-26. He answered touching all the things whereof 
he was accused of the Jews. Yet they never charged him or 
his people with claiming the subversion of the old church, nor 
the organization of a new one, nor indeed the rejection of in- 
fants from it. Had the apostles rejected infants it would have 
given the Jews 9 special case of stirring up all possible hate 
against then: on that point. 

But the Doctor thinks it is Ditzler against the Discipline. 
Not at all. Our creed is in the articles of religion. The Rit- 
ual is not the crsed. It is left to our use or not. Methodists 
mean what they say when they teach liberty of conscience. 
That form of the Ritual was not in the earlier Disciplines any- 
where. Wesley never wrote one word of that\)2iv{. 

As to the church, Paul is pointed, Heb. xii, 22, 24. Hav- 
ing catalogued the representative men of the church in all 
ages (ch. xi, entire) that their numbers were not completed, 
they were witnesses to the saving efficacy, and power of faith 
in Christ, Jesus being " the K)under, beginner, and finisher 
of the fa)th" — so the Greek reads, treated of from ch. x, 38, 
39, through ch. xi ; all in Paul's day are encouraged to look 



7o8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

to liim as the only Savior, and not to ritualistic services; for, 
the law of ritualistic services at Sinai being "removed" — 
you do not approach God by Sinai — ye are not come to the 
mount, etc., verses 18-21 — all is terror there — "but ye are 
come to Mount Zion, to the General Assembly and church of 
the first born'' — ye unite with this grand armj^, cloud of wit- 
nesses,'' to the fact that it is through faith and not ordinances 
that we are saved. You thus come to the great body of 
God's people, one in all ages, in all times, and in all lands, 
" to Jesus," who was "the beginner and the finisher of the 
faith," by which all are saved, for there is " one Lord, one 
faith," and one baptism, ^e all walk in the steps of that 
faith of our father Abraham, "who saw [by faith] Christ's 
day and was glad." Such is the beauty and harmony ot 
apostolic preaching, alike consistent and honoring to God. 

The Doctor comes along with some more syllogisms. They 
are on a par with the rest. Look at a sample — the first that 
I caught. 

Any act that forestalls all future intelligent action of the 
child is wrong. Infant Baptism does forestall it. Therefore 
it is wrong. Let us look at this precious specimen of 
logic. (?) 

1. It assumes that baptizing a child forestalls future intelli- 
gent action. That, we deny. It is a point to be proved. It 
is not true by any means. 

2. It assumes that to forestall future intelligent action is 
wrong. This is untrue. Educating a child that is under your 
authority is forestalling its choice in education. Much you 
teach it may be regarded by it as of little or no value — nay, 
hurtful. 

3. Circumcising an infant forestalled future intelligent action 
as much so, and far more, than does baptism, even from your 
stand-point. 

4. A Baptist child at 9, 10, 12, 16 years old, as a rule, exer- 
cises no more intelligence of choice in the church it joins, and 
mode of baptism it undergoes, than a babe six months old. 
It is as free from investigation, has as little show for " choice " 



Infant Baptism. 709 

from any intelligent stand-point, as a babe. The same is true 
of most children of all churches. 

5. It is a Bible question, to be settled by that record. 

Here is another syllogism. ^' I^ow hear me, Hal." " All 
that is necessary to faith o^ndi practice is in the l!^ew Testament. 
Infant Baptism is not there, not in the commission. There- 
fore it is not necessary to our faith and practice.'' Here he 
assumes that everything that is not expressly named is not in 
the JSTew Testament. We all know that is utterly untrue. It 
assumes that all the apostolic churches had all the Scriptures of 
the E"ew Testament from ^lvq to sixty years before they wert 
written!! Poor logic! It calls in question — or rather ignores 
Luke's and Paul's testimony. The one tells us that the 
Bereans were more noble than those of Thessalonica in 
that they searched the Scriptures daily to see if these things 
were so/' These were the Old Testament Scriptures, for the 
]S"ew was not then in existence, 2 Tim. iii, 15-17. Timothy 
from a child knew the Holy Scriptures, which were the Old 
Testament, as not a word of the ]^ew was written when he 
was a child. Yet says Paul of the Old Testament, it " is good 
for doctrines, for instruction in righteousness," etc., etc., " that 
the man of God may be thoroughly perfect," etc. [N'ow we 
could frame a host of syllogisms on this wise: All churches 
that reject the Old Testament, aid infidelity. Baptists do so. 
Hence, they aid infi.delity. All churches that ignore the 
teachings and true use of the Old Testament, violate Paul's 
teaching, and apostolic precedent. Baptists do so, hence, etc. 

But we regard all this talk about forms of logic in 
•utter absence of a single logiealargument as simply ridiculous. 
If all that is necessary to faith and practice is there, why do you 
ever use the old. If all is there, why this parade of Lexicons, 
commentators, critics, — Catholics, Jews, classics — all creation 
raked up on mode of baptism ? All that is essential to faith 
and practice may be in the ivTew Testament or even in one single 
epistle— contain more than some of us live up to. But to un- 
derstand it all — comprehend it all, all of us have to go to that 
of which the other is a continuance and enlargement. By the 
words of the .commission alone who could understaiid it, but 



7IO The Great Carrollton Debate. 

for the practices and principles and history of the parties in- 
volved ? Water is not named in the commission. Why not 
baptize with wine, classically as Plato uses it? Why not with 
abuse, as Alcibiades uses it ? It does not say a word about 
water — with water. Again — what are you going to teach 
them ? Teach them all things whatsoever I have commanded 
you? Did he command to organize a new church, legislate 
infants out ; and regard this as what was meant by receiving 
such little ones in my name ? Clearly enough the commission 
has to be interpreted in the light of existing facts — practices. 
Always among the Jews infant children were taken in with 
their parents. This none will deny. In discipling adults from 
Gentiles, in all cases their infants came in with them. The^^ 
knew nothing else. Hence, no class is specified in the com- 
mission. There was no need of it whatever. Baptizing them 
— whom? It does not specify (1) men, (2) nor women, (3) 
nor boys, (4) nor girls — (5) nor children. It is the commission of 
one who acts on the plain principles of common-sense and com- 
mon honesty. As they had been taught for over three years that 
the great first task was reforming, elevating, arousing the 
membership of the church, so now, having a goodly start, the 
purified, purged church, bring into it the Gentiles. All are 
now to be held as on a common level — -one new man or ele- 
ment. For over three years we have taught Jews — all have 
had a chance — all rejecting me are now declared ex-communi- 
cate — the veil is rent — all are now to come in alike— Jew and 
Gentile. 

Now,' Br. A. Campbell truly tells us that during the whole 
of the Apostolic age infant circumcision was practiced. We 
learn as much. Acts xv. 1-21, and xxi. 

]!l^ow this being so — 

1. It was a recognition of the fact that the old church of 
God was not destroyed, but continued. 

2. That infants were still recognized as members of the 
church. There is no way of evading the force of these facts. 
How could the Apostolic church still continue to circumcise 
all their male infants as had been the case, during the first 
century till near its close at least, yet regard their infants as 
no part of the church ? 



Infant Baptism. 711 

We have now met all on earth the Doctor has named. We 
have swept it all away as chaff before the wind. What next 
will he get up? Evidently nothing better; for we are now 
late in the third day on this question. My points are estab- 
lished — fixed. ISTot a stake has he shaken — not a cord has he 
broken, not a stone has he jostled. Look now at our position. 
We started out showing there was a church long centuries be- 
fore Christ came in the fi.esh. We then analyzed the whole 
question of church existence and machinery. We showed it 
was the effect of the espousal of great truths — embracing 
Christ in faith in which act men were saved. As faith in 
God is the great stay of heart and life, it is all important to 
have the same developed in infancy — faith and love of truth 
God gave man the promise of redemption — Christ was the 
means — the pledge and ratifier of the covenant of salvation. 

All who had sinned and done wickedly could be restored 
by embracing the promise of this Covenant, Jesus Christ, 
by faith. Such parties are most natural Ij- drawn into sympa- 
thy and co-operation for the good of their common kind. All 
who embraced the Promised Seed were God's spiritual family 
— church — "called" from sin and death to purity. But they 
had to undergo all this to become as innocent before God and 
morally fit for heaven as infants, through the Covenant of Re- 
demption, were without those processes. As faith transforms 
the soul, they are taught to believe in God, and as they grow 
up take hold upon God, and are morally developed into His 
moral image in the active virtues and sanctifying powers of 
religion. They are his church, wherever any number of these 
believers choose they meet, organize themselves together — 
there is a church visible. Such organized form is seen in 
Moses' day. They worship— have officers in the church as 
we have now. They have synagogues and temple where they 
meet, sing, praise, read, hear God's word, pray. 

We examined into the church visible and invisible. All 
was found intact. They had rules for expulsion of members 
and ministers and enforced them well at times, laxly at times, 
just as we now do. Bad men got in then, do so now. Good 
men deplored those evils then, as often you read in the Pro^ 
phets — so they do now. 



712 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Infants were recognized as in that church always. It was 
God's economy. Christ came — found that state of things — he 
never put the infants out. To a people who had always had 
infants in the church, which in his day and for centuries be- 
fore, was often called the kingdom of God — to a people whose 
infants were always in the church, Christ said of little children 
brought in the arms of their mothers — called by Luke "in- 
fants" — " of such is the kingdom of heaven." " He that 
receiveth one such little one in my name receiveth me." Does 
that look like rejecting them — putting them out? 

We will, in our next speech, take up the history of Infant 
Baptism after the Apostolic age, and hear the testimony of the 
fathers of the earlier ages of the church, after Apostolic his- 
tory ceases. 

J^ow, again, we demand chapter and verse just as we give. 
We have relied on no inference, however just, as to (1) the 
Church ; (2) infants in it ; (3) their receiving the appropriate 
ordinances of the church. We gave chapter and verse for 
all — for every point. You say (1) that Church ceased, (2j a 
new one was organized, (3) on radically different principles, 
(4) legislating infants out. Give us plain, emphatic "thus saith 
the Lord" for all of that. Surely if it is so important to make 
it plain, undoubted that they were in — as you all agree — in so 
poor a church as you make out the one God had for 4000 
years, the rejection of them from so pure and admirable a 
chiuch will be named. Give us chapter and verse. — '[^Time out. 



Infant Baptism. 7^3 



DR. GRAVES' SEVENTH REPLY. 

Mr. President. — I come now to examine the cbaracter of 
materia] John prepared for the Lord — for of like material the 
entire building is to be composed. 

1. Did Johnt baptize unbelievers and infants — or believ- 
ers ONLY? 

N"otice the characters he addressed. They were all church 
members — according to your teachings — for they were all cir- 
cumcised, and members of the Jewish commonwealth, which 
you call a church, unless you will surrender your church 
identity theory with the covenants, and you must for without the 
covenants of the Old Testament you cannot get a foundation for 
anj^hing to call a church — you ought to give it up in very 
wo7'd as vou did the covenants. 

But what you denominate the Jewish church, was SipoUtico- 
religious organization, of which all the natural descendants of 
Abraham, together with the slaves purchased by them, were 
members by virtue of such relationship and purchase. Of 
this "church," idolaters among the Jews, every vile and abomin- 
able character, the murderers of the prophets and of the Son of 
God, as well as David and Samuel, Anna and Simeon, were 
legal members. This is what the old ' church' was. Was it 
what Christ evidently designed the "new man," or church 
to be? 

What is the nature of religion under the IN^ew Testament ? 
Is it not elective f Is it not a matter of personal, voluntary choice ? 
Does it not require a conscious, voluntary obedience to every 
requirement? Is not every command of Christ addressed to 
the individual directly? Must he not understand it, and obey 
or disobey it ? Is not every duty it enjoins a personal duty, 
which the individual must discharge himself; and which can- 
not be discharged for him by another — much less when he is 
unconscious of the duty? If the Romish priest may not per-^ 



714 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

form penance for the unconscious dead, no more may the 
Protestant perform baptism or any other religious duty for the 
unconscious infant But to be baptized and to unite one's 
self to the Christian church are reUgious duties, and are there- 
fore addressed to Christians and to the individual. Religion, 
therefore, being elective and purely a personal matter between 
the individual and Christ, and not between Christ and the 
parent and priest for the child, and requiring as it does, in 
every instance, a conscious, voluntary obedience, we are driven 
to the conclusion that the baptism and church member- 
ship of unconscious infants form no part of the religion of 
Christ, and we may expect to find his churches composed of 
professed believers only. While on the other hand, if baptism 
and church membership, are hereditary and national, we may 
look for national churches — like the Jewish — embracing athe- 
ists, infidels, idolaters and murderers in its world-wide com- 
prehensiveness. 

Mark the preaching of John. 

The first sentence that fell from his lips transformed religion 
from a national and proxorial, to an individual and elective af- 
fair, and thus abolished Judaism from thenceforth. " Repent 
ye," said the Harbinger, not nationally but personally^ each one 
of you for himself, for the kingdom of heaven, not a Jewish king- 
dom, bat something different and distinct from that — a new dis- 
pensation, the Messianic kingdom is at hand. This command 
was laid upon all who were to become members of the new 
kingdom. 

l!Tow comes the decisive test. The Pharisees and Sadducees 
(as Elder Ditzler would have done) came and demanded bap- 
tism at his hands, under the impression that John's baptism 
belonged to the legal dispensation or old Abrahamic church 
and being included in that, they claimed his baptism, not 
by virtue of repentance, but by their relation to Abraham and 
his Covenant, and the old Church — the very reasons the advo- 
cates for infant baptism urge for their practice now. "We see, 
then, that this great question, which now convulses the church, 
was clearly presented by the Jews, and as clearly decided by 
John. The issue was, •' Did John's ministry belong to the 



Infant Baptism. 715 

old dispensation, and was baptism but a substitute for circum- 
cision? If so, then every Jew, man, awe? ma^e infant, (and no 
others) had an undoubted right to it, and John did wrong to 
forbid their rightful reception of his baptism, and thus repu- 
diate their just claims and title. But he did most positively 
deny the identity of his mission with the old Jewish economy, 
and taught that he came a Harbinger of a new order of things 
— Messiah's kingdom — in which relationship to believing 
parents, though that parent were Abraham himself, gave no 
right or title to his baptism; and he distinctly taught them 
the new kingdom he came to usher in, was radically distinct 
from the old. Hear his address, as I can well imagine it : 

" You urge in vain your relationship to Abraham. This relationship 
does not one whit improve your moral nature. God can transform these 
stones around me, into beings, with as holy natures as Abraham's blood 
descendants. You mistake the nature of the kingdom I come to intro- 
duce. It is is not a national Church like the Jewish Israel, that Messiah 
comes to establish, and set up but a spiritual kingdom, composed of spirit- 
ual and holy persons only. Under the old order, the many wicked and 
ungodly were found with the few righteous and obscured their light, the 
barren and ill-bearing trees cumbered the ground and shaded out the good 
trees : but Messiah will not allow this in his kingdom — he will lay the 
ax unto the roots of all the trees without favor or distinction, and the 
trees bearing good fruit alone will be allowed to stand, while all others 
will be rejected. He will thus make his true people evident to the world." 

*' He will not allow his floor to beunpurged — the chaff mingled with the 
wheat — but comes to purge it thoroughly, and the w heat alone will be 
gathered into his garner — that the prophecy of David (Ps. 1) may be ful- 
filled, that "sinners shall not stand in the congregation of the righteous." 
Before you can claim my baptism, or share in the blessings of this king- 
dom, to which my preaching and baptism are prerequisite, you must re- 
pent, each one of you, and give me good evidence of your repentance, 
and then you may receive at my hand the baptism of repentance.^' 

Such, in brief, was the teaching of John. He denied the 
alleged connection between the two churches and dispensa- 
sations, that a right to the former, conferred any title to the 
latter — and Baptists are the only people who teach the above doc- 
trines. 

The main pillar of proof for infant baptism now, is based 
upon this old exploded Judaistic theory of the identity of 
Covenants and churches, and since infants were allowed to be 
circumcised under the old, they should be allowed to be bap- 



7i6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

tized under the new — unless we can show when their rights 
were cut off'. 

Well, suppose we grant that the churches are the same, but 
at the coming of Christ he made some changes, revised the 
old constitution, as all Pedobaptists admit, where are we now 
to look for tiie laws to govern his kingdom, into the new con- 
stitution, (New Testament,) or back to the old constitution ? 
(Old Testament.) If into the Kew Testament, as every candid 
and intelligent man must admit, then the first sentence of the 
first law of the new constitution abolishes infant rights, John's 
pruning ax cuts them oft* forever — unless Elder Ditzler can find 
some subsequent special promsion in their favor. This we have 
called upon him in vain to do. Why can he not find it? 

We are told that Jewish parents would have been shocked at 
the idea of leaving their infants out. Perhaps so; perhaps 
thej^ were, and perhaps this was the very reason why they so 
universally rejected Christ. He came to set up a spiritual 
church, not a national one, and he required personal religion 
of all who entered it. Moses, and all the Prophets, had 
taught them that at the coming of Messiah a radical and com- 
plete change of things would be introduced, that old things 
were to pass away and all things to become new — and a new 
Covenant would be made, unlike the old, &c. (See Jer. xxxi. 
30-33) 

2. But it is certain that john Baptized no Infants. 

We have the charity to presume that no one will dare 
charge John with teaching one thing and practicing, contrary to 
it. If he did not practice contrary to his teaching, he certain- 
ly baptized no unconscious infants^ since not one condition laid 
down by him could be met by infants, and he made no excep- 
tions^ and gave no warrant for proxy obedience. Infants could 
not hear or obey his message — and his message and mission 
were only to such as could hear and obey. They could not re- 
pent, or believe on a coming Messiah. Nor can you say that 
John did not interfere with their previous existing rights un- 
der the old Covenant, which were recognized in the new; 
for we have shown that he cut them off", and taught most em- 



Infant Baptism. 717 

phatically that the old "church'' with ita parental relationship, 
gave them no right or title to his baptism. 

Here we stand upon firm and impregnable ground, and look 
from the first sermon of John to the first sermon of Christ, and 
see that the " people prepared" by him must have been all 
professed believers. 

John preached saying, '''repent ?/e," and required of them the 
proper evidences of their penitence. Those who furnished 
these evidences, and those alone, were baptized of him in Jor- 
• dan, ''confessing their sins." 

He rejected the Pharisees and lawyers, who did not give 
genuine evidence of repentance. 

Mark's testimony is: "John did baptize in the wilderness 
and preach the baptism of repentance [mark, not the baptism 
of remission but of repentance'] for the remission of sins, (making 
repentance the condition of the remission of sins, and not bap- 
tism), and they were all [i. e. who did repent] baptized of him 
in the river of Jordon, confessing their sins. 

Paul says, Acts xix, 4 : " John verily baptized with the 
baptism of repentance, saying unto the people that they should 
believe on him who should come after him, i. e. on Christ." 
They were then all professed believers. Not one particle of ev- 
idence can be wrested, by rack or torture, from the Sacred 
Record, to show that John baptized any but those giving evi- 
dence of repentance and professing faith in Christ. He was 
not a Pedobaptist. 

8. John biptized in every case upon a profession or declara- 
tion on the part of the believer of his repentance, and remission of sins 
vast; and Baptist ministers alone resemble him in this particular. 

Pedobaptists cannot baptize for this purpose, or hovv can they 
baptize infants? The act of John's baptism was not to change 
the moral character of the subject, nor was it the procuring or 
instrumental cause of remission of sins, as we understand Mr. 
Wesley. Was it not to secure this peculiar purification and 
moral fitness, which they understood by the Prophets would 
be required of Messiah's subjects, that the Pharisees and law- 
yers came to his baptism, and demanded it at his hands? 



7i8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

They did not understand the nature of the change, but were 
tvilling and anxious to secure it. If John administered bap- 
tism/or the remission of sins, they were the very persons to 
whom he should have administered it, and if a willingness, and 
even anxiety to be baptized, is a sufficient evidence of true re- 
pentance, as Ritualists teach, then had the Pharisees and 
lawyers true repentance, and John should have baptized them. 
But a willingness to be immersed is not sufficient evidence of 
true repentance and remission of sins. We find nothing in 
all John's teaching, or what is recorded of him, that he bap- 
tized for remission of sins — his was denominated the "bap- 
tism of repentance"^ — m, into the remission of sins. This 
expression denotes a declaration or profession of the fact that 
their sins had been remitted. See baptism m, into the Father, 
and Son, and Holy Spirit ; also, eis, into Moses, m, into Christ, 
eis, into his death, eis, into my name, etc. Therefore, John 
was no Ritualist. 

Eld. Bitzler's challenge is accepted. He says, he has shown 
that infants were in the Jewish church or old dispensation of 
the church, and he calls upon Baptists to show where they 
were rejected from the Christian church. I will show him. 

1. John rejected them from the "people" he prepared for 
Christ, which people' Christ constituted into the first visible 
Christian church. When he demanded repentance of every 
one he baptized, he cut off infants as certainly as he did infi- 
dels. 

2. When he baptized only upon the confession of sins, he cut 
off infants. 

3. When he rejected the children of believing parents, the 
Jews pleaded they were the children of Abraham. John abol- 
ished all hereditary rights and privileges, and established those 
only belonging to character— -tho. believer in Christ, and thus 
again he cut offinfants. 

^ow let me ask a few questions, not quite so easy of 
solution, perhaps, as yours. 

1. Has Christ anywhere required you to baptize the infants 
of professed believers, or of every family ? Is there a clear 
example of the baptism of the infant of any one? 



Infant Baptism. 719 

2. If so, why can you not find one such command or exam- 
ple—one passage, that you can agree among yourselves, does 
teach or warrant it ? You have not done this ! 

3. But if you can find neither, why do you enjoin it as a 
Christian duty, and an ordinance of the Christian church ? Is 
it not adding to the Bible ? 

4. Is not the ordinance (or, as you call it, the sacrament,) 
of Christian baptism exclusively an ordinance of thel^ew Tes- 
tament and ordained by Jesus Christ? If so, why go to the 
"church," as you call it, called into existence by the covenant 
made with Abraham to find a law for infant baptism (sprink- 
ling) ? 

5. Did not the kingdom, or any of the kingdoms, of which the 
great image seen by Kebuchadnezzar was the emblem, exist 
anterior to the cutting out of the above mentioned stone? Or 
does not the expression, " Thou sawest, King, until a stone 
cut out," etc., imply that the kingdom, or kingdoms, of which 
iY(the image) was emblematical, did and should commence 
existence before " the stone " should be actually cut out ? See 
and read Dan. ii. 44-46. 

6. I^ow it is plain that the stone was cut out after the king- 
doms were set up, and that it represented the Church of 
Christ. This true, the Christian church could not have ex- 
isted anterior to the time of Daniel. . 

7. But had not the Abrahamic "church" been in existence, 
and was it not then in existence, at the time when Nebuchad- 
nezzar saw the stone which was cut out without hands ? 

8. If the Christian dispensation is a continuation of the 
Jewish, baptism only coming in the room of proselyte bap- 
tism, entitling the children of believing parents to Christian 
privileges, with what propriety could John refuse the Jews^ 
who were the children of Abraham, or the children of the 
Jews, any participation in his baptism ? 

9. If John's baptism and the economy under which he 
preached and baptized, was only substituted for the Jewish, 
why did he require repentance and faith as a condition in every 
subject he baptized — conditions which were not known in the 
Jewish economy, or Abrahamic church, and which cut off, 



■J20 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

with but one exception, all who were admitted into the Abra- 
hamic church bj circumcision, Abraham being the only one 
ever circumcised as a profession or seal of his faith ? 

10. Did the Jews, the members of the Abrahamic church, 
(as you call it) consider their church, and that constituted by 
Jesus (7An5^, as identical ? If so, why -their hostility to and 
maltreatment of the members of Christ's church? 

11. If the Jf^wish church and the Christian church be the same 
chirch, or identical, how could John the Baptist with pro- 
priety say to the Jews, " The Kingdom of Heaven is at hand," 
(''has come."). How could he say '•'has come" of that which 
has been in existence for thousands of years? 

12. If John's dispensation was neither the Jewish nor the 
Christian, neither the close of one the nor the beginning of the 
other, into what church did John initiate those whom he bap- 
tized? 

13. Jesus, Messiah, said of certain Jews, " Ye shut up the 
Kingdom of Heaven against men, for ye neither go in your- 
selves, nor suffer them who are entering to go in." If this 
kingdom, of which the Savior spake, was the Jewish church, 
and identical with the Christian church, were not those Jews 
already in the church? And, if so, how are we to understand 
the above language? 

14. If the Christian church is but a continuation of the 
Abrahamic or Jewish, why are not the adult children of be- 
lieving parents as much entitled to baptism as infants? And 
how can you get in Gentiles ? 

Will you please answer this? Adults by thousands and 
without faith were circumcised, and incorporated into the 
'* old church," why not in the new ? I ask you again : 

15. Is not the church or kingdom of Jesus Christ a spiritual 
organization, designed to be composed of the saved. Christians 
only, not men of this world? If the theory of Pedobaptists, in 
relation to infant membership, was fully, practically carried 
out, among all people, tongues, kindreds, and nations of earth; 
as in Russia, Sweden and Austria, would not the church, in 
less than a century from this time, become co-extensive with 
the N'ation or State, as in several of the European States? 



Infant Baftism. 721 

Would there be an individual in haman fv^iMi that would not 
be within the pale of this visible church? And then, how 
would the language of the Savior, "My kingdom is not of 
this world," longer remain true ? 

Then, while you would find the overwhelming mass of the 
population, ministers and priests, unregenerate and really un- 
believing as well as unregenerate, as in those countries men- 
tioned, yet being all baptized the law of the commission can- 
not be carried out, which is to disciple, i. e., to make Christians 
fii )t and then baptize. The law would thus be inverted, and 
so perverted and subverted by the theory. 

My friend's reply is a very lame one, viz: If all were converted, 
the commission could not be carried out. This is an irnpossible 
supposition, for there are one or two depraved beings born every 
second — beings who cannot be addressed under the commis- 
sion until accountable for sins, ten or fourteen years of age, and 
thus while the race multiplies, the Gospel must needs be 
preached, men discipled, baptized etc. But Elder Ditzler puts 
it out of the power of every child he baptizes, so far as his 
church can do it, to obey Christ in baptism. He is told he 
was baptized in infancy, and no Pedobaptist church will per- 
mit him to render voluntary obedience to Christ and observe 
tbe order of His law 

Refutation. 

Arg. XXIII. Any ordinance that makes void the express command of 
Christ, must be a tradition of men — for men's traditions invariably make 
void the law of God — and are sinful. 

But the baptism of all infants, as the Methodists teach, would make 
null the command to baptize believers. 

Ergo — Infant baptism is a human tradition, and sinful in the sight of God. 

Arg. XXIV. (1) Christian Baptism is, in every case, an act of intelli- 
gence and voluntariness. 

(2). The Baptism of an unconscious infant is an act of ignorance and 
constraint, never of intelligence and voluntariness. 

(3). Ergo, Infant Baptism is in no case Christian Baptism. 

Arg. XXV. (1). Any religious act that is not of fa,ith, is displeasing 
to God — " Without faith it is impossible to please God." 

(2). Infant Baptism is a religious act that is not of faith, nor can be 
said to be of faith in either parent or infant, since there is no command 
for, or promise attached to it, or knowledge on the part of the infant. 

(3).. Therefore, Infant Baptism must be displeasing to God. 
45 



722 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Abg. XXVT. (1. If Infant Baptism were an institution of Christ for 
some specific purpose, then Pedobaptists could not be at a loss, or would 
not differ about the grounds of the right of infants to baptism. 

(2). But they are at a great loss, and they can not agree either npon 
what authority to desire it or the purpose for which it was given. Ergo, 

Among the many reasons for baptizing an infant I notice 
the following : 

1. It is to wash away Original Sin as Wesley and the Methodist Epis* 
copal Church teaches. [See Doctrinal Tracts, " Wesleyana," and her 
Ritual.] 

2. It is their right by the Abrahamic Covenant. 

3. They have a right of their own faith, superinduced, 

4. On the faith of their parents. 

5. On the faith of thek sureties. 

6. That the Church can give them the right 

7. On Apostohc tradition. 

8. On the inferred authority of Scriptures. 

9. On the silence of the Scriptures. 

10. Because the infants of believing parents are bom pure or holy — and 
therefore entitled to it. 

11. Because they are born members of the Church, and therefore enti- 
tled to it. 

12. Because Baptism is a sacrament, a Divinely appointed means of 
grace, and should be withheld from none, young or old. M. E. Church. 

13. Because it is a seal of the Covenant of Grace, out of which no one 
can be saved. 

14. It produces for the child, though unconscious, the regeneration of 
the Holy Spirit, and creates it a member of Christ, an heir of God and 
an inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. 

15. Because without it there is no certain promise to any one to enter 
heaven. 

15. Because as Neander teaches, though the Scriptures do not enforce it, 
and are indeed silent about it, yet it is in accordance with the Spirit of 
Christianity. 

(3). Therefore Infant Baptism is not an institution of Christ. 



Infant Baptism. 723 



DR. DITZLER'S EIGHTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — In presenting the History of 
Infant Baptism after the death of the apostles, we quote the 
celebrated Tertullian first as witness, because, 1st — All truth- 
ful men agree that he names it as an existing institution in his 
day, and even the bitterest opponents confess it. Thus, A. 
Campbell, in his maturest work, Christian Baptism, pages 269, 
355, twice in substance repeats, thus: "Tertullian, the first 
who mentions infant baptism, ' etc. Dr. Gale, Baptist, who 
writes to answer Wall, says : '• As to his express mention of 
Infant Baptism, when he opposes it, that does not necessarily 
argue," etc.; Wall, xi. 345, Oxford edition, 1862, in 2 vols. 

2d — Because he is claimed by all Baptists who hold to the 
so-called succession theory, as a Baptist. Orchard, 33 ; Ford, 
152 ; Waller, Benedict, etc. " He, as a Baptist, stood," etc.; 
Orchard 33. 

3d — Because all parties acknowledge him to have been a 
scholar of ofreat erudition, a learned lawyer, a trained rhetori- 
cian, and, all candid men admit, he was a sophist of the 
shrewdest kind. So ISTeander, vol. 1, 683, by Torrey. 

4th — Because he lived so near the apostolic age. He wrote 
his work on baptism about A. D. 190. John, the apostle, 
died about A. D. 101 or 102. Hence Tertullian wrote this 
part of his work about 88 or 89 years after John died ; after 
the close of the apostolic age. 

5th — We are bound to treat this part of history with the 
same degree of fairness and candor with which we treat all 
historic questions. The very historians and writers we will 
now quote, are largely our historic authorities for the most 
valuable facts in history and Christianity, and their testimony 
goes far to determine the very books of the New Testament 
itself. I could name parties who quote them shamefully. 

6th — I shall quote from the correct text, also, as given by 



724 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Pamelius, and by Gaigneus, his first editor, and not as in the 
corrupted copy of Rigaltiiis; see Wall, i; 61, 62; ii. 613 
especially. 

7th — To appreciate and understand Tertullian, we must 
understand his views of baptism. He held that baptism was 
for the remission of sins ; that '' al] waters * * * ^q^ 
after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanc- 
tifi-cation ^ ^ ^ They imbibe , at the same time, the poiver 
of sanctifying : " ch. v. De Baptismo, p. 236, vol. 1. Hence 
he said, in the same paragraph we wish to quote — 

" For no less reason the unmarried should be kept off^delayed — pro- 
crastinandi] — who are hkely to come into temptation [or trial], as well as 
those who never were married^ upon account of their coming to maturity^ as those 
in widowhood for the miss of their partner, until they either marry, or 
are confirmed in contmence." Wall, i. 58. 

Here Tertullian advises all young people, all widows, and 
unsettled persons, to refrain from baptism, lest they, through 
the many temptations and trials before them, sin after their 
baptism, and be lost. Will Dr. Graves endorse such sophistry ? 
Will Baptists do so ? 

These fundamental errors on baptism, as to its design and 
subjects, naturally led him to oppose infant baptism with still 
more zeal, as all these objections would bear with additional 
force against their baptism before whom all of life lay out in 
the future with all its trials and temptations. 

Here, then, are his words, in the same paragraph with the 
above : 

" Therefore, according to the condition and disx)osition, yea, of the age 
also of such person, the delay of baptism is the more profitable. Yet 
more particularly still [prceeipue tameri] in the case of little children. For 
what need can there be except in case of necessity — si non iam necesse — if 
not very necessary — i. e., danger of death, as elsewhere his meaning 
shows, ]that the godfathers should be brought into danger? for they also 
may either fail of their promises by death, or may be mistaken, by a 
child's proving of a wicked disposition. The Lord indeed said, ' Do not 
forbid them to come unto me.' Therefore, let them come when they are 
grown up ; let them come when they can understand : when they can 
be instructed to what they come. Let them be made Christians when they 
can know Christ. What need their guiltless age hasten to the remission 
of sins * * * Let them know how to desire salvation," etc. Wall, i. 
58 ; Giesler, i. 163. 



Infant Baptism. 725 

1. Observe, now, that these little children are too ^^oung to 
give any "promise," but godfathers do this for them. They 
are of guiltless age; too young to be guilty of wrong. They 
are too young to enable parents, etc., to discover what is their 
disposition ; not old enough to know what baptism is, nor to 
desire salvation. They are even too young to be instructed ; 
to know Christ. The term, parvuli, applied to them, is con- 
stantly applied by the Fathers of that period, to infants from 
four and eight days old to a year old, as well as to others several 
years old. 

2. Tertullian's opposition shows that Infant Baptism w^as 
then practiced in the church. He does not oppose it as a new 
thing; as an innovation; but as an existing practice. He is 
led to it by his theory as to baptism, and opposes all young 
people receiving it; much more little children without guilt. 

3. The manner of his opposition shows it to have been uni- 
versal in the church at that time — eighty-eight to eighty-nine 
years after the death of John. Look at the facts: Tertul- 
lian was a learned, brilliant lawyer, a fine rhetorician. He be- 
came the model, in style, to all Roman ecclesiastics; even of 
the Roman church. He coped with the wits, orators and so- 
phists of Rome, in an age when her horizon w^as still aglow 
with the splendors of her declining glory. He was master of the 
best methods of argumentation, and would use the most tell- 
ing arguments within his reach. 

Had a respectable minority of the churches not baptized in- 
fants, infallibly certain it is that he would have at once point- 
ed to that as an important fact; reproached it as an innovation 
involving complete revolution, and raised a tempest of opposi- 
tion that would have crushed it He would have asked them 
the grounds of their not baptizing infants. All parties in that 
day, as Xeander tells us, claimed apostolic precedent, for what 
they did. They would have pleaded, therefore, that they were 
the true followers of the church. N^ay, no question one tenth 
as momentous, as revolutionary, involving such radical 
changes, infested the church, for the first three hundred years 
after Christ, as this — nay, in no one age of the past eighteen 
hundred jesir^ did ^ change take place involving so much of 



726 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

change in fundamental principles, as a change from " believers' 
baptism," in your sense of the word, to infant baptism. The 
church would have been rent the moment a party espoused it. 
A small part}^ as small the}' must have been, if so late an in- 
novation as all our opponents contend it was, would have been 
excoJiimiimcated at once ; and if they had gained strength 
and adherents, the world would have been tilled with the din 
and clamor of both parties, as it was on all points of contro- 
versy. Had a majority not baptized infants, bow triumphant- 
ly would Tertullian have appealed to that as a good reason; 
yea, proof that it was not apostolic. 

He, soon after this, united with the Montanists, and became 
a distinguished leader. He wrote learned books, still discuss- 
ed and referred to baptism, but not a word about infant bap- 
tism. It cannot be claimed that his slight opposition bad 
checked it; for, by this time, Origen testifies to it in a 
manner that perfectly establishes its universality in his day, 
which was in the latter part of Tertulliau's day; hence, 

4. Let us now bring in other facts; Origen was the most 
learned, the most extensive tourist, and therefore extensively 
informed of all the Fathers in the early centuries. His father 
was a Christian martyr. His grandfather and great-grand- 
father were Christians; the latter, contemporary with the apos- 
tles. Origen was born A. D., 185 ; some eighty-four years af- 
ter John's death. He wrote A. D., 215. He was distinguished 
as a scholar when only twelve years old. He was fifteen years 
old when Tertullian espoused Montanism, and was perfectly 
familiar with afi:airs in N'orth Africa, where Tertullian lived. 
His words, in due time, we will read. He testifies to the 
church's giving baptism to infants as a thing unquestioned, 
and adduces the universal fact to prove a peculiar dogma, as 
later, Augustine did. In a council, only thirty-eight years 
later, A. D., 253, in Carthage, sixty-six Bishops unanimously 
decide that it is not necessary to delay baptizing infants till 
they are eight days old, that being the only issue involved in 
their case. Wall, 1, 79, 83; Cyprian Epis. 66. 

The decrees, speedy anathemas, and excommunications of 
those times, — the action of Victor, Bishop of Rome in the lat- 



Infant Baptism. 727 

ter days of Irenseus, — show that all customs and peculiar views 
of parties were speedily communicated to all other parts in 
those days. The troubles on fast days in Asia at once came 
to E-ome. See Eusebius' Hist. vol. v. cJa. xxiv. Giesler's Eccle- 
siasti-cal History, volume, i. pages 166-67. Victor excommu- 
nicated them on this small matter. Much agitation ensued. 
Is it not strange that the smallest change, the slightest differ- 
ence in practice, fasting or keeping a feast on a« different day 
should cause such a commotion over all the church, and yet 
such a radical revolution as this come in, and no one be able 
to trace whence, when and where it came in ? 

The best arpjument Tertullian could have used would have 
been to maintain that it was not apostolic. He would have 
said, "we can settle this matter. Let us consult those 
venerable men who heard Philip and John preach, and their 
immediate converts. They will tell us all about the matter." 
Plenty of men lived in Tertullian's day who were converts of 
the apostles. Thousands lived, and many preached, who 
were disciples of the immediate converts of the apostles. 
As he was so strongly opposed to infant baptism, he would 
have asked them and used their information with force ; 
crushing weight. Orchard, the enthusiastic Baptist historiau, 
eulogizes Irenseus, Polycarp, Justin Martyr and Clement, of 
Alexandria, pages 23, 25, 26 seq., and attaches great import- 
ance to their silence on this subject. Let us carefully weigh 
these matters in view of that silence. Polycarp was a disciple 
and bosom friend of John for years. He visited Rome about 
A. D. 160, on ecclesiastical matters, fast days, etc. ; Giesler, 
vol. i. page 167 ; Eusebius, vol. v. p. 24. Justin Martyr was 
writing vigorously about A. D. 166, Irenseus, born about A. D. 
97, four or five years before John the apostle died, was reared 
under the care and instruction of John's bosom friend, Poly- 
carp, and often talked with Polycarp about John. All parties 
are agreed on these facts. See Orchard, 25, 15. Ignatius of 
Antioch, and Papias, disciples of John, come in here too — dis- 
tinguished writers and most pious. These men were all most 
zealous against heresies, and all innovation. They cover the 
entire space between the apostolic age and A. D. 180, By the 



728 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

unanimous agreement of immersionists, infant baptism did 
not exist during this time. This brings us to within ten years 
of when Tertullian wrote his opposition to it. Ten years' space 
we have now. 

But remember Tertullian was then full thirty or thirty-five 
years old, and was from fifteen to twenty-five years old while 
m(»st of these men were John's disciples, else as Irenseus, 
a disciple of his disciple, born four years before John's death. 
Clemens Alexandrinus wrote his learned works about the 
same year Tertullian did, and often names baptism. IiToav vve 
appeal to every candid man, (1) how could such an innovation 
come in here without detection ? (2) How could it spread far 
and wide throughout the whole church and not be detected? 

Infant baptism, if not apostolic, implied, (1), a complete 
revolution of tue whole doctrine of the church. This ail can 
see. Hence it could not come in without producing fearful 
agitation. 

2. A radical revolution in the whole practice of the church. 
Was Tertullian too stupid, and all his associates claimed by 
Orchard, Benedict, Ford, etc., to see and oppose such with 
zeal and argument? Was the whole church so suddenly 
ti^ansformed, that in the short space of ten years she takes on 
such changes? Yet all writers remain as silent as the grave, 
while they fill the world with clamor about the smallest ques- 
tions and simplest issues. IsTot only did Irenseus write specially 
against heresies, A. D. 162 and 180, but the pious and learned 
Hippolytus, A. B., 220, writes a book on heresy and traces all 
the innovations he knew of. He is contemporary with Ter- 
tullian. Why does he not discover the heresy ? But Origen, 
who at twelve years of age drew the attention of the learned 
by his wonderful powers of mind and proficiency, born A. B. 
185, wrote A. B. 215. His father was a Christian martyr of 
great piety. His grandfather and great-grandfather, contem- 
porary with the apostles, were Christians. 

Had Infant Baptism been brought in during this period, 
how could it have become universal between A. B. 190 and 
200? At fifteen years of age, Origen being then admired and 
sought after by learned ministers, could easily have learned 



Infant Baptism. 729 

it. Had it been practiced by only a minority of the churches, 
he would have known it. His parents and grand parents 
would have known it, running back even to the apostolic age. 
How does he speak of it? He says: 

" Infants are also by the usage of the church, baptized. The church 
had from the apostles the injunction (tradition) to give baptism to infants. 
Infants are baptized for the forgiveness of sins. Of what sins ? Or when 
have they sinned? Or how can any reason of the laver (baptism) in their 
case hold, but according to that sense that we mentioned even now? No 
one is free from pollution, though his life be but the length of one day 
upon earth. And it is for this reason : because, by the sacrament of bap- 
tism, the pollution of birth is taken away, that infants are baptized." 

Here, then, are the facts: it is absolutely impossible that 
Infant Baptism should have come in as an innovation and 
gotten a deep hold between John and the days of Irenseus, 
A. D., 162 to 167 or 180. That space is filled up with too 
many holy and vigilant men. Marcion, Montanus, Cerinthus, 
Basilides, etc., all come in as heretics, with many others in 
that period, but all the literature of those times — the very 
manuscript copies of the Bible — all history marked the advent 
of all these innovating sects, names, etc. Their heresies are all 
given elaborately, as might be expected. Then it has to 
come in between these: between A. D. 180, and A. D. 190, 
when Tertullian wrote against Infant Baptism, except in case 
of necessity — danger of death. But Tertullian was then a 
man of extensive knowledge, a shrewd and noted advocate and 
capable of observing surrounding events and making inquiry. 
He had been a Christian fully ten or twelve years, we pre- 
sume, before he wrote so learnedly on the Bible as he does. 
Yet under his very eyes the most radical of revolutions starts 
up; no one knows where, when, nor how, nor by whom; in 
the short space of ten years, he thirty years old at that time, 
yet when he comes to oppose it incidentally, only driven to it 
by his peculiar views of baptism, which we all repudiate, he 
cannot find a man who agrees with him in his opposition ; 
cannot even build up a sect on that point, and at once the 
practice is reversed in the church, and no one can tell how! 
All the great Fathers let it pass unnoticed; the whole church, 
many of whose ministers were born in apostolic days and suf- 



730 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ferred untold persecutions for Christ's sake, rushes into this 
revolutionizing heresy. Yet it cannot be traced! In A. D., 
215, twenty-five years after this, the learned Origen finds it 
universal. In A. D., 253 and 266, bishops unanimously de- 
cree that it is not necessary to delay baptism even until the 
child is eight days old. Augustine says the whole body of 
the church, in the case of little infants baptized, who cer- 
tainly cannot yet believe, or confess, etc., that which the whole 
church practices; Wall, vol 1, p. 164. Pelagius never heard 
of any one denying it. Cselestius declares that infants 
(infantes) are by the law^ of the whole church baptized (secun- 
dum regulam universalis eccltesi^ — Sym.Rag. 1, Giesler, vol. 
1, p. 334). J^ay, as Wall triumphantly proves, there never 
was, Tertullian excepted, an open, or defined, or organized 
opposition to Infant Baptism, till A. D., 1522. N"ot a single 
fact can be found that is reliable, supporting any other oppo- 
sition to it, than Tertullian's till A. D., 1522 anywhere. 

Paulicians, Manichees or Manicheeans, refused baptism to 
all parties ; w^ould not baptize anybody. This was not opposi- 
tion to Infant Baptism. Hence the assertions of Robinson, 
Danvers, Orchard, 35, 36, 49, 69, as samples, are a shame and 
disgrace to the name of history. 

But Tertullian is not the first who refers to Infant Baptism 
as an existing and recognized fact. The way in which he 
alludes to it as shown, proves it to have been universally 
practiced A. D. 190. It could not have crept in between 
Irenseus, A. D. 180 and 190-^in ten years for the reasons 
given, and not met fearful opposition and exposure. It ex- 
isted, then, before Irenaeus. Nay, Irenseus clearly refers to it, 
though he uses a word very commonly used then for baptized, 
viz : regenerate. 

Too early the converts from heathenism began to attach to 
baptism a mystical virtue, as iTeander shows and their writings 
demonstrate, (see Tertullian De Baptismo, vol. 1, chapter v. 
page 236; chapter iv. page 232, translated by Alexander, 
Roberts and Donaldson and Louisville Debate, pages 570-571,) 
and attributed more and more virtue to the outward ordinaiu e 
until, at lastj they boldly declare baptism, the grace of God 



Infant Baptism. 731 

co-operating to effect with it regeneration, to be for remission, 
and the ordinary means of regeneration. Hence, Trenaens, 
born while the apostle John yet lived, uses regenerate for bap- 
tise, as Wall and A. Campbell so clearly demonstrate. The 
latter says : 

"All the apostolic Fathers, all the pupils of the apostles, and all the 
ecclesiastical writers of note, of the first four centuries, whose writings 
have come down to us, alluded to and spoke of Christian immersion (bap- 
tism) as the regeneration and remission of sins spoken of in the New Tes- 
tament."— Mil. Harb. extra. 1830, page 28. 

Substantially the same sentiment will frequently be found in 
his Christianity Restored and Christian System. Justin Mar- 
tyr speaks so clearly here — A. D. 140, he died about 166. that 
he cannot be misunderstood. Candidates "are brought by us 
to where there is water, and are regenerated in the same man- 
ner in which we ourselves were regenerated, for they then re- 
ceive the washing with water in the name of God the Father," 
<^tc. 

Irenseus uses regeneration repeatedly for baptism. Here are 
his words as to infants : "For he came to save all by himself; 
all, I say, who by him are regenerated ( i. e. baptized ) unto 
God, infants (infantes) and children, and youth, and elder 
persons." Well says the candid and patient Dr. Wall, that it 
"cannot be doubted by any that are at all acquainted with the 
books of those ages" that the word regenerate here signiiies 
baptism. Here is a witness that was born four years before 
John the apostle died ; who lived in the neighborhood of his 
later labors ; who for long years was instructed by John's 
bosom friend. Poly carp, and tells of his many interviews with 
him, and how Polycarp often talked of the venerable apostle 
whom Jesus loved. He distinctly alludes to infant baptism as 
a practice well understood, and needing no detailed comment. 
To suppose that he spoke of infants as regenerated to God in 
the same connection in which he narr9tes that of older people 
and all ages, and not including baptism, is infinitely absurd, 
when we know his style of language and that of his age. But 
our opponents are compelled to deny, gainsay, raise a dust, 
and dodge the best way possible ; for to admit Irenseus' tes- 
timony in the form it is, as proving infant baptism, is to give 



732 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

up everything; for living contemporary with so many of the 
ministers ordained by the apostles, and under the care of John's 
favorite disciple, Polycarp, and seeing that the language 
assumes it as a matter as well understood and by all admitted 
as the baptism of all other ages, it is admitting it to be aposto- 
lic. Hence our opponents become desperate here, and make 
very wild assertions. 

Historically, it is, therefore, absolutely certain that infant 
baptism did not begin between the apostolic age and Tertul- 
lian, Origen and Cyprian. Therefore, it was apostolic. — Time 



Infant Baptism. 73 



OJ 



DR. GRAVES' EIGHTH REPLY. 

Mr. Prt^^sidbnt: — I now notice the ministry of Christ and 
his apostles, from his baptism until he gave the last commis- 
sion. 

The question to be settled is : 

Did Christ during His public ministry command to bap- 
tize ANY BUT believers, OR, DID HiS DISCIPLES BAPTIZE ANY BUT 
THOSE THEY HAD DISCIPLED BY TEACHING ? 

The record of his baptisms during the three and one-half 
years of his ministry is as explicit as it is brief. 

"He made and baptized more disciples than John, though he 
baptized not but his disciples." — Jno. iii. 22; xxix. 6. 

I call the attention of Eld. Ditzler to these facts stated — 

1. They were disciples whom he is said to have baptized — 
and there can be no discipleship without previous instruction 
and faith. 

2. That the making or discipling preceded the baptizing 
of them. Jesus made and baptized — not baptized and made. 
The priority is important — that Jesus baptized none but be- 
lievers is readily conceded by all Commentators not merely 
partisan. 

T.Scott. — "The baptism of .Tesiis was, doubtless, of adults alone." — 
Com.\)n John iii. 22-24. 

Abp. Newcome. — "I suppose it granted that Jesus could not make dis- 
ciples without instructing them in the nature of His kingdom." — Dura, of 
our Lord's Min. p. 58. 

M. Henry. — '■'•Hemade discip'es: He prevailed with many to embrace 
His doctrine, and to follow Him as a teacher from God. . . He baptized 
those whom He made disciples ; admitted them by washing them with 
water ; not Himself, but by the miiiistry of His disciples." — Com. on John 
iv. 1, 2. 

R. Watson — "Our Lord's baptism by His disciples was administered to 
those Jews that believed on Him as the Messias ; all of whom, like the 
apostles, waited for a fuller developement of His character and offices." 



734 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

"The disciples" baptized " in the name of Jesus, which was a profession of 
faith in Him as the Messiah." — Theol. Ins. vol. iv. p. 415; Expo, of Matt, 
xxviii. 19. 

Dr. a. Beeth — "John baptized into the faith of the Messiah who wa« 
to come, and pointed out His person to the multitude. Jesus baptized into 
the faith of himself, as having actually come." — Christ our Life, p. 447. 

Dr. D. Davidson — "It is particularly noticed, that Jesus baptized not 
those who professed to believe in Him, but His disciples." "The baptism 
enforced by John . . . most probably was of the same nature as that of 
Jesus, a rite observed in token of repentance and faith in the immediate 
appearance of Messiah's kingdom." — Com. on John iv. 1-6. 

Dr. a. Barnes— "As they were displeased with John, so they were 
with Jesus, who was doing the same thing on a larger scale — not only 
making disciples, but baptizing also." — Com. on John iv. 1. 

Dr. W. Smith — "Baptism was even during our Lord's earthly ministry 
the formal mode of accepting His service and becoming attached to His 
company." — Bib. Die. Art. Bap. 

Dr. HaIiLiEY — "We do not maintain, as do many, that our Lord on 
this occasion instituted Christian baptism, for the apostles under HirS au- 
thority had previously administered it to great multitudes of the Jews" 
(vol. X. p. 65). He also says that "the opinion of the Pharisees," who 
"had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John," ' wa;^ 
that baptism was the sign of discipleship" '^vol. x. p. 100); from which I 
should infer that they knew it not as "the designation of catechumens," 
that is, of " the unbaptized youth under religious instruction" (vol. xv. p. 
106). Such a revelation respecting baptism had not then been given. 

It is claimed that Christ's blessing the little children at one 

time brought to Him and declaring, "of such is the kingdom 

of heaven," is positive testimony that little children, infants, 

then belonged to His church and this is to baptize infants. 

We think it is proof positive to the contrary. 

13. "And they brought young children to him, that he should touch 
them ; and his disciples rebuked those that brought them. 

14. "But when Jesus saw it^ he was much displeased, and said unto them, 
Suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not ; for of 
such is the kingdom of God. 

15. "Verily I say unto you. Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom 
of God as a little child, he shall not enter therein. 

16. "And he took them up in his arms, put his hands upon them, and 
blessed them." — Mark x. 

Let us see what we can learn from the whole statement. 

1. "They brought young children to Him" — for what 
object ?--it is expressed— not to be baptized— but " that He should 
touch them'' — but grant that it was to baptize them. 



Infant Baptism. 735 

2. "The Apostles rebuked them that brought them." There 
could have been no infant baptism ^nor to this date ^ ov the 
Apostles would have known it — for they were the only admin- 
istrators, and would have been as delighted as the Methodist 
ministers now are to see them come. 

These Apostles, had they been Pedobaptists, would not 
have refused baptism to the little infants. !N^one but Baptists 
do this, and these Apostles were Baptists, for they were bap- 
tized by a Baptist preacher, and they knew nothing about 
infant baptism, or infant rites, under the New Dispensation. 

3. Christ did not institute infant baptism here, and there 
would have been theplace, if he intended it to be observed. He 
did not tell His Apostles to baptize these, nor hereafter to 
baptize others, but he simply put his hands on them and 
blessed them, and He did not tell His Apostles to do this nor 
his churches, nor ministers, in after ages, to observe it. 

4. But he rebuked his disciples for finding fault with those 
who brought these children — and he did say, " of such is the 
Kingdom of Heaven." 

What did he mean by the phrase? Evidently not children 
physically, in size and years; otherwise none but such should 
compose his church — no adults ; and when they grew up into 
man and womanhood, they would have to be excluded. This 
proves too much. Then he meant in some likehood. 

Let Christ explain it : 

*'For verily I say unto you, except ye be converted and become as little 
children, ye shall not enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Whosoever, 
therefore, shall humble himself as f his little child^ the same is greatest," etc. 

"Whoever shall not receive the Kingdom of God as a little child, he 
shall not enter therem." 

"Except a man be born again" — then he is a little child — 
an infant indeed, and fit to enter the Church of Christ. 

These passages, therefore, teach that there is such a resem- 
blance, or relationship between a child-like spirit, and the 
Church of Christ, as makes the possession of one the condi- 
tion of the other. 

What would not Eld. Ditzler give if he could find here in 



736 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

his Syriac version, or Arabic even, or Ethiopic, the word 
amad instead of eulogei that like a sword, cuts off the very 
neck of his theory ? 

I add a few opinions of the most eminent Pedobaptists 
touching this transaction, men who had their use of infant 
baptism to defend, as Eld. Ditzler has his, but they were can- 
did, and felt bound to confess the truth. 

Bp. Taylok. — "From the action of Christ's blesshag infants, to infer 
they are to be baptized, proves nothing so much as that there is a want of 
better argument. The conclusion would be with more probability derived 
thus: — Christ blessed infants, and so dismissed them, but baptized them 
not; therefore infants are not to be baptized" {Lih. of Prop.^ p. 326). — This 
is at least a furdhle argument which Bp. T. thinks the Baptist can adduce. 

M. Poole. — " We must take heed we do not found infant baptism upon 
the example of Christ in this text ; for it is certain that He did not baptize 
these children." — Anno.^ on Matt. xix. 14. 

Dr. Macknight says : Suffer little children to come unto Me, and fo bid 
them notj — -for of such is the kingdom of God. The church of God on earth 
and His kmgdom in heaven, is composed of persons who resemble little 
children."— On Matt. xix. 13: 

W. Btjekitt. — "They were brought unto Jesus Christ: but for what 
end? Not to baptize them, but to bless them. . . . Christian baptism was 
not instituted. John's baptism was the baptism of repentance, of which 
infants were incapable." — Com. on Matt. xix. 13-15. 

Dr. Doddridge — "I acknowledge these words of themselves will not 
prove infant baptism to be an institution of Christ." — Note, on Matt. xix. 14. 

Dr. Lange, on "of such is the kingdom of heaven," saj^s: "According 
to the parallel passages in Mark and Luke, it must also be regarded as a 
symbol of a child-like spirit, just as havtism itself is the type of personal re- 
generation'''' — Com., on Matt. xix. 13-15). — And yet Dr. L. sees " the un- 
child-like spmt of Baptists ; " and that "the children of believers are 
admitted hito the kingdom of heaven ; " while " Baptists ignore the possi- 
bility of faith as a seed in ih^ heart of infants ! " 

Dr. L. Woods says : "No one pretends that the children spoken of in 
this passage were brought to Christ for baptism, or that the passage affords 
direct proof of infant baptism." — On Bap., p. 75. 

I now meet the question, by the only law for baptism in the 
Bible, and boldly affirm 

Infant Baptism Forbidden by the Commission. 
This, Eld. Ditzler says, " is the only law for the baptism of 
any one." The baptism of believers is specifically instituted 
here, but no other character is mentioned, and therefore for- 
bidden. 



Infant Baptism. 737 

I will only allude to the prohibitory character of the law 
here, as I reserve its full discussion for the fifth proposition. 
It is the province of positive law to exclude what it does not 
specifically include. I will illustrate this. Suppose the gov- 
ernment should commission officers to raise a regiment of 
soldiers, and the order read — "enlisting men six feet high, 
and between the years of eighteen and forty." Would those 
officers not know exactly what to do ? Would they not violate 
that order should they enlist men ^ve feet eleven inches ? Would 
they not violate it, should they enlist men seventeen years and 
eleven months, or forty one years old ? They would, for the 
simple reason, that positive law excludes what it does not 
specifically include. 

I appeal to these farmers before me. You unite and send 
your order to McCormick for one thousand dollars' worth of his 
reapers, and he sends you the reapers, but adds two thousand 
dollars' worth of his threshers also, and the bill, demanding 
immediate payment, would you pay it? Why? You know^ 
that he sent them without your authority, and contrary to it, 
for when you specified reapers, you forbade him to send 
threshers, suppose he should bring suit for his money, and 
plead that he was authorized, because you did not expressly 
tell him not to do so — do you think there could be twelve 
men found in Missouri, who would render a verdict for him 
on this plea ? Christ said, baptize believers, disciples — did he 
not forbid us to baptize unbelievers, or non-believers, and those 
incapable of being discipled ? Christ commanded " disci- 
ples" to be baptized, says Matthew, and Mark says he speci- 
fied " believers " — both characters imply a previous teaching, to 
the extent of accepting Christ as a personal Savior. What 
right, or what authority does this law" give Elder Ditzler to 
baptize one untaught or unbelieving f To do so, would be to 
palpably violate the plain letter of the commission, that a 
child can understand, as well as a Judge of the Supreme Court, 
Elder Ditzler never did sprinkle an infant except in open vio- 
lation of this law. But to baptize an un- or non-believer first, 
and then to teach after, is to invert the order of the law, which 
is to pervert and nullify its intent. 
46 



738 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Blackstone and all jurists will tell you that the order of law 
is inviolable — for it is the law itself. A suit or indictment not 
brought in due order, or by the prescribed process is quashed 
and thrown out. N"o judge will hear the case unless brought 
in due form of law. 

The Lawgiver in Zion, for wise purposes, has established 
Kepentance, Faith and Baptism in the Kingdom of Grace. 

What right have churches or ministers to invert this order 
and teach baptism, faith and repentance ? He has command- 
ed Discipleship, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper. 

How presumptuously impious to teach men to administer 
the supper first, then Baptism and then to attempt to disciple — 
administering the sacred ordinances to unregenerate sinners, 
which can only be rightly observed by Christians who can 
spiritually discern the Lord's body! Establish this manner of 
treating the order of law, and apply it to the affairs of your 
business, and see how it will work. You order your hands 
to go break up a piece of prairie, sow it in oats and harrow 
them thoroughly. They go forth and sow first, then breakup 
and harrow. Or you order them to clear a piece of new 
ground, burning oft' the timber, sowing it in wheat, and they 
first sow the wheat and then clear and burn upon it! 

Apply it as you will, to invert the order of your commands 
is to pervert and nullify them. We may not dare to treat the 
laws of our king in this way. When he specifies what is to 
be done and the order, we may not either do something else 
or do it in a difterent order. We disobey him in either case. 
And why should we wish to do it. If he has not told us to 
baptize our children, why should we desire to do it? Doing 
it without his express command is an act of will worship — it 
is doing our will anil not his will. We can only know his will 
from his word. 

But he has not, within the lids of his Revealed Word, com- 
manded infants to be bap+ized, and it is certain it contains no 
example of the baptism of an infant, no reward for doing it, 
no censure for leaving it undone; and how can Eld. Ditzler 
imagine that it is his will ? What right has he to intimate 
it? But these facts, and they are stern facts, show that Infant 



Infant Baptism. 739 

Baptism is not only unauthorizedj but forbidden hy the very 
language of the commission. There is not a judge on a bench 
in all this land, who possesses common intelligence and hones- 
ty who would not, under oath, rule that this only law for bap- 
tizing any one, forbids the baptism of one incapable o± believing 
or even hearing the GospeL That judge will tell you that 
this commission no more includes idiots or unconscious in- 
fants and unbelievins: children than it does bells and asses, 
and graveyards and church houses that the Catholics 
sprinkle in the name of the Trinity, as they do infants, and up- 
on the same authority — that of the Romish church. 1 would 
to-day a thousand times rather baptize horses and bells and 
graveyards than infants. 

The teaching and example- of the Apostles do not authorize hut for- 
bid the practice of Iifant Baptism. 

The first record of Apostolic baptism we have is at Pente- 
cost. Who were baptized at this time? The heads of families 
who believed with all their children. Here was the place and 
this the occasion to have carried the commission to baptize 
infants into practice, if Christ had given them authority 
to do so. 

Here is where they did baptize infants if anywhere. But 
if they did teach it or practice it, the Holy Spirit is not a faith- 
ful chronicler of the Acts of the Apostles. To say they did is 
to impeach the faithfulness of the Holy Ghost. If Christ had 
commanded the Apostles, if he in any ivay had authorized 
them to baptize infants with their parents, and they did not 
preach it or practice it here, they were not faithful to their 
Master. Why will you tenaciously cling to a practice that in- 
volves such results ? To suppose it practiced, impeaches the 
fidelity of the Holy Spirit; if authorized by Christ and not 
practiced, that of the inspired apostles ! ! 

But I afiirm they did not with all these 3000, baptize an in- 
fant or unbeliever^ but only those " who gladly received the 
word which they had heard, for when the Holy Spirit says 
" they that gladly received the word were baptized," it by log- 
ical implication says, none but such were baptized. I^ow read the 
last verse. Who were added to the Church daily during this 



740 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

great revival ? l^ot, as our version unfortunately reads, "such 
as should be saved," but those who are saved — i. e., " the saved.'^ 
I have not often corrected our common version, and when I 
have, it is to give you a literal primary meaning, instead of a 
secondary ov figurative one. You will bear me witness that I 
have strictly adhered to the Rules of Interpretation, to which 
we both assented the first day. I have in every case insisted 
upon the literal and grammatical constYuctioii of the sacred text, 
as my opponent has universally insisted upon a secondary, or a 
remote and unusual signification of the term. Our translators 
were Episcopahans, and their creed colored their translation 
here. It is the practice of the Church of England as of all 
State Churches, and of the Methodist Societies, to add all that 
should, be saved to the church, and thus make the Church co- 
extensive with the nation or the world. But not a scholar or 
commentator on earth supports this translation, and the orig- 
inal forbids it. 

We find here the definite article tous before the participle 
soudzomenous, and the law of the language is, that a definite 
article before a participle must be translated as a relative pro- 
noun, and the participle in the indicative of its own tense. 
Every scholar knows this and every-school boy should know 
it. Then there is no such intimation here of such as "should 
be," but literally the saved — grammatically, those who were 
saved. Read the record, then, as it was indited by the 
Holy Spirit. The Lord added to the Church those who were 
saved. They were not added, i. e. baptized — for by no other 
act can you add — to the church in order to save them, either 
by conferring upon them remission, regeneration or justifica- 
tion ; but they were added because they had been remitted, 
justified, regenerated, and therefore saved — no living uncon- 
scious infant ever was justified or regenerated or could be 
said, in any sense to be saved, and, therefore, they were not 
added to the church with their believing parents on this 
occasion, but the Record tells us they were not, or it is an 
unfaithful chronicler of the Acts of the Apostles. 

I know not a standard commentator who does not endorse 
my rendering of tous soudzomenous here. Even Alexander 



Infant Baptism. • 741 

Campbell immolated his system upon the altar of his scholar- 
ship here — he translates it as I do — so Bloomfield, and Alford 
and Barnes, and others. But if no others, the Holy Spirit 
says so. It must be conclusive with my opponent when I 
quote his great teacher, Dr. Adam Clarke : 

" And the Lord added to the church daily, such as should be saved.} 
Though many approved of the Ufe and manners of these primitive Chris- 
tians, yet they did not become members of this holy church ; God permit- 
ting none to be added to it, but tous soudzomenous, those who were saved 
from their sins and prejudices. The church of Christ was made up of 
saints; sinners were not permitted to incorpoarte themselves with it." 

The Lord added the saved to the church, and none else. This 
is the Lord's order and the Lord's practice, Jno. Wesley and 
the Methodist Discipline say, that, an infant w^hile it lives is 
not saved, but lost^ and is a child of wrath.'' l^ov is a seeker, 
one who simpl}^ desires to flee the wrath to come, saved, and, 
therefore, should not be baptized. But baptism adds to the 
church — it is the initiatory rite according to my friend's Dis- 
cipline, and in this one thing I admit it agrees with the word 
of God. Therefore, infants and unsaved persons are not auth- 
orized to be baptized, but they are forbidden by this record, 
as b}^ all other records of the Acts of the Apostles. 

Refutation. 

Arg. XXVII. That practice which tends neither to glorify God, nor to 
the profit of the child, when grown up, but may prove hurtful, and en- 
danger his salvation, cannot be of God, and to teach and practice it is a 
sin against both God and man. 

But infant baptism does not tend to the glory of God, for he has no- 
where required it, but by the very words of the commission, forbidden it, 
and how can God be glorified by man's disobedience, or by his practic- 
ing contrary to his Word, or doing what He hath not required ! Read 
Lev. X. 1, 2. Neither does it profit the child. The Bible contains no 
promises to a sprinkled child. The advocates of infant sprinkling have 
been searching for it for upwards of fifteen centuries in vain. But that 
the practice has a very dangerous influence on the subject in after years, 
cannot be questioned, if he beheves the creed and catechism of the church 
that performed it, for each, whether Catholic or Protestant, teachesaman, 
that in and by the act, he was regenerated, or m^ade a menaber of Christ, 
heir of God, and inheritor of the kingdom of heaven, all the blessings of 
the covenant of grace sealed to him. 

Ergo — We must conclude that infant baptism is not of God, and that to 
teach and practice it is a sin against God and man. 



742 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Aeg. xxa-tii.— ^Yhatcvcr rite puts it out of the power of a child, when 
it comes to years of discretion to obey Christ, or obtain the answer of a 
good conscience, is evidently not of God, for Christ would not make any 
given act a duty and obligatory upon a beUever which he had contravened, 
rendered nugatory and impossible, by a previous one. 

(2). Infant Baptism does this. The child that is sprinkled in infancy, 
cannot obey Christ in baptism for his parents performed the duty /or him. 
They can repent for him as well. If there were none but Pedobaptist 
churches, he never could obey Christ, or obtain the answer of a good con- 
science. 

Ergo. — Infant Baptism cannot be of God. 

Aug. XXIX. (1). Any religions rite that necessarily generates m the 
subject or others wrong notions of personal religion, or is calculated to 
implant unbelief in personal religion is not of God, and is subversive of 
the Christian religion and pernicious to the souls of men. 

(2). Infant Baptism does this. All Pedobaptist countries are proof of it. 
Every infidel in England, Germany, Italj^, Prussia or Russia, is a mem- 
ber of a Pedobaptist church. While the overwhelming mass, though un- 
regenerate, rely implicitly upon the efficacy of their Infant baptism to 
save them, they urge with reason that they are saved without personal 
repentance or j^ith, if the teachings of their church be true. 

(3). Therefore Infant Baptism is not of God, and is subversive of the 
Christian Religion, and pernicious to the souls of men. 

Arg. XXX. (1). If Christ, when he gave the commission for baptizing, 
specified the character to be baptized, as the one beheving, he forbade the 
baptism of any other. 

(2). But he did specify the one telle ving. Ergo, He did forbid the 
baptism of unbelieving infants or adults, — bells, horses, etc. 

Aeg. XXXI. (1). Christian Baptism is, in every case, an act of personal 
OBEDIENCE. A law, and a knowledge of it, and volition, are essential 
to obedience. 

(2). Infant Baptism is not an act of obedience in any sense, since it is rjto- 
where commanded. Since it is nowhere commanded, there is no law for 
it, and if there were,, an infant could have no knowledge of it, or vohtion 
concerning it» 

(^3). Therefore Infant Baptism cannot be considered Christian Baptism 
in any sense. 

Aug. XXXn. (1). Christian Baptism is in every case an act of rehgi- 
ous worship, since obedience is the highest act of worship, 

(2). Infant baptism is in no case an act of worship, because not an act 
of otedience. 
(3). Therefore Infant Baptism is in no case Christian Baptism. 
Arg. XXXIII. (3). It is sinful to neglect anything required of God. 

[2). It is not sinful to neglect Infant Baptism, says a Presbyterian, See 
Tract. 

(3), Therefore Infant Baptism Is not required of Gk>d« 



Infant Baptism. 743 



DR. DITZLER'S NINTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — We have in, all the evidence 
we want — -four times as much as we need. We now have 
nothing to do but drive back our foe — meet his assaults. This 
consists simplj in a running fight — no hand to hand contest. 
He settles upon no real, persistent line of attack. He is like 
a man assailing an immense tower of adamant, who, instead 
of steadily assailing one point in hope of effecting a breach, 
simply pitches little pebbles at the entire building. 

He smarts under the keen lashing we gave him on hereditary 
religion, etc. He wishes now to modify it very much. I am 
glad he felt the rebuke. He did contrast the religion John 
preached with that had up till then thus — " Now all stand on 
their individuality — they can't inherit religion now." He 
used those very words and I wrote them down from his lips. 
Also — " it (religion) don't come down by genealogy." 

We showed distinctly 

1. That they were not in our sense believers whom John 
baptized from Luke iii. 15-16, and Mat. ix. 14. See also Acts 
xix. 1-15. 

2. If they had been, baptizing believers who are adults 
" unto repentance,''this did not prevent baptizing infants who 
needed no repentance. 

3. John baptized that Christ might be revealed to Israel. 
John i. 33. If he did not baptize infants these two facts were 
sufficient reasons — '^ unto repentance" and that Christ might 
be made known to the people. 

4. Those baptized by John had not received, and did not 
therein receive the Spirit. Hence it was wholly defective- 
preparatory. 

5. Baptism by the church is not for either of the two only 
things John said it was for — hence all deductions therefrom 
as to adults or infants are wrong. 



744 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Doctor Graves says God dou't require any thing till the par- 
ties can understand it. 

1. Why did the Apostolic church circumcise infants then? 

2. Why did they take them up to the temple to do with 
them after the manner of the law ? 

3. Why were ei2:ht thousand six hundred of them " from a 
month old and upward, keeping the charge of the sanctuary" 
set apart to that work by the Almighty ? !N'um. iii. 28. 

Late in the Apostolic history, special laws were enacted to 
stop circumcision among the Gentiles, both of infants and 
adults. See Acts xv. 

I^ow where was the positive law ejecting him from mem- 
bership ? 

He says Zachariah, Mary, etc. were not in the church. Let 
us look at the situation then. 

1. There is no church in John's day, so Doctor Graves 
holds. 

2. Then his baptism put nobod}^ into any church. Bap- 
tism i? no initiatory rite yet then. 

3. The Twelve, 70, the 120, the seven deacons of Acts vi. 
are nowhere represented as baptized. Now we desire to 
know — 

4. How these ever got into the church from the immersion 
stand-point ? You say the church was not organized by 
John, but by Christ on the Mount, Mat. v. vi. vii., where he 
preached the sermon. Well then, 

5. Here we see (1) a church not named — (2) organized, yet 
not named — no hint (3) no local congregation ; (4) no officers 
elected (5) and the Apostolic college not yet filled up. He 
selected one or two — Matthew among them, after this sermon, 
ch. ix. 9. 

What was done on the Mount to organize a church? He 
had selected disciples before — ch. iv., and the rest after- 
wards — ch. ix. 9 seq. 

Now if a man's life or liberty depended on it, and you were 
to prove that you had organized a Baptist church, and if you 
iailed to do so, life was forfeited, and you ofiered no more evi- 



Infant Baptism. 745 

dence than you have done or can do, to prove that Christ or- 
ganized a church on the Mount, you know that before any 
Baptist jury on earth you would lose your case — the life that 
hung on it. But where is the entrance ? Where is your bap- 
tism? We have the church organized — no local congregation, 
no deacons, no elders, — no baptism ! 

In a few days Matthew joins the church, then, please tell us, 
how does he get in ? They do not baptize him. Seventy 
more join — no account of baptism. And so — up till Pente- 
cost there is not the notice or record of the baptism of a single 
one who associates with Christ. How then can you regard 
baptism as a condition of membership when such is the New 
Testament record ? No Sir, there is no hint or sign of the or- 
ganization of a church anywhere in all Christ's ministry. 

He tells of one person regretting being baptized in infancy, 
What argument is there in that ? Here behind me now sits a 
preacher whose wife always regretted not being baptized in 
infancy, and here is Bro. Dockery who regrets he had not 
quit the Baptists sooner, but do you hold that as proof Bap- 
tists are all wrong ? 

The Doctor gets confused on Philip and the Eunuch. No 
Sir, the text is not in any ancient Greek Bible, nor in the 
manuscripts of any version of the first six centuries of the 
church — merely inserted — doubtful — in modern editions from 
old manuscripts. But A. Clarke thinks Eph. ii. 16, " new 
man" means new church. But Paul took a different view, 
and Olshausen takes the right view of Paul — viewing it as we 
do. John iv. 2 — Christ by his disciples " made and baptized 
more disciples. But what does that prove ? Does it show 
that they failed to baptize the intants ? Did they orgaijize 
those baptized into churches ? Nothing of the kind. 

On John iii. 5, we have given our exposition, and he can- 
not touch it. As to commentators, nine-tenths of them all 
hold with us on all the essentials of these points. We prefer 
exposing the Doctor's errors, and presenting clear expositions 
of truth to long quotations and compilations from commenta- 
tors. As to controversialists, we know it hurts them sorely. 



746 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

that at last a number of us have taken the field and thej are 
compelled to take down their colors or have them taken down 
for them. 

He says "you can't make a disciple of an infant." Here 
is now his position. The commission says — " Go, disciple all 
the nations, baptizing them, etc." ^ow says the doctor — you 
can't disciple an infant, hence, he can't be baptized. To .that 
we I'cply. 

1. All the best and most critical commentators assert that 
mathceteuo disciple, does not necessarily include previous teach- 
ing. So Clarke, Alford, Olshausen, Stier, Lightfoot, etc., etc. 

2. The 'New Testament puts it in evidence that this is 
correct. In Matt, iv., Christ sees Peter and others fishing, 
and says : "Follow me, and they arose and followed him." So 
Matt. ix. 9 — he called to Matthew — " follow me" — and he did 
so. iTow here is the most important act of discipleship, yet 
no previous teaching in either case. 

3. In the next place Paul puts it in evidence that in infancy 
parties can be discipled. 2 Tim. iii. 15-16, Timothy learned, 
and had been taught the Scriptures — that is discipling — teach- 
ing from your own standpoint — apo brephous from infancy. So 
the Greek reads. He will not deny but that brephce is the 
Greek word for infant. It covers the age from birth till three 
to five years old generally. Timothy's mother and grand- 
mother had exerted an influence on his verv intancv, and had 
made him a disciple in Doctor G-raves' sense of the term. 
Then here by the terms of the commission you are com- 
manded to baptize infants as much as adults. All that can be 
discipled are to be baptized. 

But no class is so easily discipled even using the word in 
Doctor Graves' sense, as " little children" or " infants." How 
old does an infant have to be before it can be taught ? 

Let us suppose for the sake of argument that Doctor Graves 
is entirely right in all this. Then we assert that still it leaves 
us in the right, and places him in the attitude of rebellion 
against Apostolic authority, for how old must a little child be 
before it can be tausrht ? How old ere it can be influenced to 



Infant Baptism. 747 

falsehood, deception, error or to truth, to obedience, and love 
and faith ? 

Truth is the valuable lesson. At three years old — at two 
and a half in some cases, at three and a half and four in nearly 
all cases, infants can be taught valuable lessons of Scriptures. 
My little daughter — -just three years old (Mary) can now an- 
swer many Bible questions. So can yours ? Well, as soon as 
they can be taught, from your interpretation, they are proper 
subjects of baptism. JSTow what will you do with that point ? 

He says that I said there was no proof that certain parties 
were baptized. Of all of whom we said such thing, we ask 
for the refutation of it. We said generally there was no 
" record/' Kor is there. It is objected that there is no ex- 
press command to baptize infants. 'No express mention of it 
in the New Testament. No recorded case of infant baptism 
in the New Testament, etc., etc. 

Against all that we say emphatically — 

1. There is no express, or non-express, mention in the ]N"ew 
Testament of women taking the Lord's supper. By your logic 
you should exclude them. 

2. It is nowhere recorded where John ever baptized a 
woman. So by your logic they should not be baptized. 

3. There is no record, nor proof that the Twelve Apostles 
were ever baptized by anybody. 

4. There is no record where John the Baptizer was ever 
baptized. 

5. There is no record where the twelve ever baptized any- 
body in all their ministry. 

6. There is no record where any of the seventy disciples 
were baptized. 

7. There is no record of any one that was baptized by 
them. 

8. There is no record where any one of the hundred and 
twenty disciples were baptized. 

9. There is no record where Ananias, who baptized Paul, 
was himself baptized. 

10. There is no record where the seven deacons were bap- 
tized. 



74S The Great Carrollton Debate. 

11. There is no record where ac infant was circumcised in 
all apostolic history; yet all agree and know they were cir- 
cumcised every week and often every day of the Apostolic 

history. 

t/ 

The sum of it is then that where so many important cases of 
presumed baptism took place, yet not one of them ever named 
or hinted, it is not surprising that the baptism of infants 
should not be named, when the Jews had such matters 
always attended to privately in most cases. 

All your objections are here more than met — utterly 

crushed. 

He now quotes Mark xvi, 15, 16 : 

''Go ye, . . . preach my Gospel to every creature. He that believeth 
and is baptized, shall be saved. He that beheveth not shall be danmed." 

This text, he thinks, excludes infants. 

1. Supposing it to be genuine — for all scholars who are 
versed in manuscript authority and literature now agree those 
verses were not written by Mark, but by a later hand. And 
they are not in any Greek Bible ealier than the sixth century, 
then marked doubtful in the iirst they occurred in — but grant 
them to be genuine, 

2. They do not exclude infants unless they are excluded 
from salvation. All whom this text denies baptism to are 
damned, if j^our interpretation be correct, for all who believe, 
not shall be damned. If infants are denied baptism because 
they cannot believe, evidently they are damned. 

But you will say it was not meant to apply to infants, only 
to those capable of being intelligently preached to, and so 
held responsible for rejecting the Gospel. 'No doubt that is 
the meaning intended. And then the sense is — all who ac- 
accept the Gospel, being baptized (baptistheis), having been 
baptized, shall be saved. He that rejects — disbelieves — shall 
be damned. 

!N^ow, if otherwise you hold it, then you must preach to 
beasts, animals — they are creatures. But it — supposing it a 
genuine document — must be explained in the light of Scrip- 
ture teaching and fact. Hence, it in no wise debars infants 
from baptism. 



Infant Baptism. 749 

On the commission, the Doctor says the specification of one 
class, is the forbidding of all others. But where is any one 
class specified by the commission? — disciple all nations. 
Does it name men, women, boys, girls? Does it designate 
adults? It solely rests for interpretation on existing, estab- 
lished custom, practice. In any other light you cannot make 
sense of the commission. Only by the past custom would you 
know that water was to be used in baptism. Only by it 
would they understand discipling. Take Mark's so-called 
account — for it was not his — that all candid critics now agree 
— though they defend its inspiration — Alford, Tregelles, etc. 
"He that believeth." Believeth what? What are they to 
preach? We are compelled to explain it in the light of estab- 
lished precedents, as all such documents are. 

On Acts viii, 37, he says we have to throw out Scripture to 
support Infant Baptism. What did A. Campbell, Anderson, 
Wilson, in their three immersion versions throw it out for? 
Because honest in it, and though the Baptist Union Bible 
puts in a note that it is wanting in the best copies — words to 
that eflfect, yet they were too dishonest to act consistently. On 
not' half as much evidence against a text, they do reject whole 
texts and a number of them, yet retain this, one of the 
clearest forgeries in the text. Tregelles well remarks on it. 
If Acts viii, 37, is to be received, then may men compose Scrip- 
ture at will. That is the tone of his criticism which I have 
here. The point then is. Baptists need forgeries to oppose 
Infant Baptism. He tells you it is in my Syriac, "in brack- 
ets," Yes, marked as doubtful, is wanting in all ancient 
copies. IN'o ancient copy of the Syriac, Greek, or Latin has 
it.. It was forged by the Catholics to support confession be- 
fore baptism in adult cases, as the Eunuch was an adult. 

Alas! the Doctor comes back with a load of his syllogisms. 
They will look rich on paper. Look at another specimen. 
" Infant I>aptism is totally opposed to the spirit of Chris- 
tianity." Here is his premise. Is it not the very thing in 
debate? Do you call that logic that begs the question? — that 
assumes as true the whole matter that is denied, or assumes 
as untrue the whole matter that is affirmed? And he calls 



75© The Great Carrollton Debate. 

such scraps, stolen from a feast of logic, the genuine article 
itself! ! Now if he wished to improve a little, he would put 
it thus . 

1. Whatever is opposed to God's "Word, is to be rejected. 
(We all agree to this — it is legitimate with Christians). 
Then 

2. Infant Baptism is opposed to the Word of God. ]^ow 
he must stop anf] prove that. That is the point in debate. 
Having satisfied all of his ability to prove this, then — 

3. Therefore Infant Baptism is to be rejected. But he 
would not give reasons if they were as plentiful as black- 
berries, especially " on compulsion.'' 

He says they baptized doubting Christians, if I understood 
him. "He that doubts is damned." I^o such record in the 
Bible. People may be weak in faith, may be in doubt on 
many things, but to baptize people of responsible years who 
were believing John to be the Christ, vv^ould be a poor be- 
ginning of the thorough work he so eulogized. Especially 
when not one received the Spirit; and "if any man have not 
the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His." 

He says " Christ nailed the ivhole moral law — all to the cross. 
We do not get to Heaven by keeping the moral law." Can 
loe get there if we live in violation of \t1 Where does he say he 
"nailed the whole moral law to the cross?" That is Baptist 
Scripture, a forgery is badly needed there. 

All that he took out of the way has no need of being kept — 
was removed because unprofitable. So Paul tells us. ISTow 
then we have no need of loving God with all our heart — it is 
of no profit — nor our neighbor — and as "love is the fulfilling 
of the law," we have no need of that, the whole moral law is 
removed, and murder, hate and crime are no impediments to 
Godliness!! Such is the Doctor's position, such the straits 
he gets into, all to get rid of infants! Verily they give him 
much trouble and cause him to fall into divers temptations, 
to most glaring inconsistency. 

He insists that proselyte baptism was two centuries after 
Christ. He must prove something there, assertion amounts to 



Infant Baptism. 751 

nothing, especially after the terrible exposure of his mere as- 
sertions the last few days. 

He dashes at Tertullian, quotes him on mode, a matter dis- 
posed of, strikes at the late -revivalists, to much of which we 
say Am£n. But it has nothing to do with our question. The 
2:)arvuU, diminutive of parvus, a child, hence parvuli are little 
children, and repeatedly interchanged with infantes, infants, 
by those Fathers. Repeatedly where one uses ^'little children," 
another says infants, just as Luke says "infants" where Matthew 
and Mark say "little children." 

He hints that there may have been interpolation in Tertul- 
lian. That is simply on a par with his whole course in this 
debate, whip around, raise dust, dodge off. ITo one pretends 
that there is interpolation here. Tertullian is most naturally 
led to his opposition to Infant Baptism from his isolated and 
strange view of religion. He opposes all young people and 
widows from embracing it, and those reasons pressed by him 
necessarily drove him into opposition to Infant Baptism. By 
the gentleman's course, of pretending to raise doubts as to the 
authenticity of a text never questioned, we could then do the 
same by any chapter or point in the Bible or history, and the 
whole be turned into a sea of uncertainty. Only where by 
not being found in the body of the oldest and best copies of 
given works do candid men pretend to allow of doubt as to 
verses and sections of writers, unless in case of copying a 
word, by mistake a single letter or word is supposed to creep 
in sometimes, especially when very much like another word. 

The forgery of Acts viii, 37 is easily made out. The 
reasons for the forgery are apparent also. The church Monks 
held it to be unallowable that a sinner should be baptized 
without confessing. Hence they put in the words, "If thou 
believest with all thy heart thou mayest. And he said I be- 
lieve that Jesus Christ is the Son of Clod." It is forgery 
throughout. As we said, Baptist Revision Unions have 
thrown out words and texts on not half the evidence there is 
against this text. They could not afford to give up such a 
favorite passage. Is it not strange that the two main texts 
relied on against the infants are in the extremest doubts, the 



752 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

one a palpable forgery, the other in no copy of the Bible 
known until the sixth century ! That was late to come in. 

We have established infant membership, which carries 
with it Infant Baptism. We have shown Infant Baptism in- 
dependent of the including major proposition, or genus 
embracing the species. He has not been able to jostle a sin- 
gle point, so it all stands. — [Time Out.~\ 



Infant Baptism. 753 



DR. GRAVES' NINTH REPLY. 

Mr. President : — I will now proceed to call your attention 
to the 

Great Revival at Samaria. 

Does not the Holy Spirit faithfully tell us all who were bap- 
tized on this occasion ? He does, or he is an unfaithful histo- 
rian. And who does he say were baptized at Samaria and 
formed the first church there? " Those that believed" etc.; 
therefore I am authorized to say — and none else — " both men 
and women." Now, just one more word here- — ^'and 
their children," would have sufiiced to authorize Infant Bap- 
tism. If it had said so, no Baptists on earth would have ob- 
jected. But that "both" is a troublesome stone here, as it 
was in the case of the Eunuch's immersion, where the Holy 
Spirit repeated it for peculiar emphasis, that "they went down 
both into the water both Philip and the Eunuch etc," a death- 
blow to the claims of sprinkling. And here it is definitive, and 
conclusive; for "both" cannot, as every school boy knows, be 
used with reterence to three persons or things. Only tioo 
classes were baptized here, i. e. men and women. 

In a public discussion at Denmark, Tenn., with the late Dr. 
R, Burrows, he publicly admitted to me when pressed close 
with this "both" that he did not believe that any infants were 
baptized in the city of Samaria on this occasion, or the Holy 
Spirit was an unfaithful chronicler of events. This was frank 
in a great champion as Dr. Burrows was in his day. 

Now I ask Elder Ditzler before this audience to say if he 
can believe with this passage before him, that men, women 
and infants were baptized at Samaria, if not, why not? I am 
willing to rest the whole question on the second of Acts and 
this passage. The next instance of baptism is that of 

The Ethiopian Eunuch. 

Philip observed the law of baptism here. He first discipled 
47 



754 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and demanded a cordial faith in Christ and then he im- 
mersed him. We can understand from this what Peter 
meant by the answer of a good conscience toward God. The 
Eunuch's conscience was answered, and he went on his wav 
rejoicing. Ah, but this thirty-seventh verse is spurious, says 
Eld. Ditzler. May be so. Let it be granted that this verse 
was added by some later hand, and we claim it at once as an 
indisputable proof of what common opinion sanctioned in post 
apostolic times. Such an interpolation never could have been 
made when tlie church was in the habit of sprinkling infants. 
What would our Pedobaptist friends say to our introducing a 
similar verse now. There is no conceivable explanation of 
how it came to be where it is, but that it was regarded bv 
some transcriber as essential to account for the Ethiopian's 
baptism by the evangelist, and there is no explanation how 
this insertion obtained sufferance but that such a demand and 
such a repl}^ were in harmony with the customs of the age. 
In support of this view, I need but cite Dean Alford's note; 

his words are : 

"The insertion appears to have been made to suit the formularies of the 
baptismal liturgies, it being considered strange that the Eunuch should 
have been baptized without some such confession." 

The Dean may or may not have perceived the significance 
'Of his admission, but it seems too obvious to call for anything 
beyond the simple expression of our thanks for the testimony 
to ancient practice it supplies. God makes the wrath of man 
to praise him. 

But the learned Dr. Stier whom Elder Ditzler has often 

quoted, saj^s : 

"Though Acts viii. 37, may not be regarded as genuine, it expresses only 
the genuine truth. Indeed after the deception practiced by Simon "with 
all thine heart," seems exceedingly appropriate and thus speaks for its gen- 
umeness."— AVords vol. 8, p. 332. 

Dr. a. Baexes, speaking of the possibly spurious 37th verse, says, "It 
contains however, an important truth, elsewhere abundantly taught in 
the Scriptures, that /arz! A is necessary to a proper profession of rehgion." 

I next notice what is said of The Baptism of Households : 

The Case of Ltdia, Acts xvi. 14-40. 
The record of her conversion and baptism is brief 'and clear. 
The Lord opened her heart to attend to the things spoken — 



Infant Baptism. 755 

just as he does the sinner to-day — the Spirit of God must hrst 
open the heart for the word to enter effectually, for the bare 
word never did or will open a sinner's heart, and he cannot 
open it himself Lydia was discipled and then baptized, and 
her household. Whether she had children along with her on 
this tradin ^ expedition, three hundred miles from home, I 
know not — Eld. Ditzler tells us the Syriac says "Lydia and her 
children," but God's word don't say children, and therefore the 
Syriac is not true to the original here — but whether her house- 
hold consisted of relatives or servants, or children, it matters 
not — they, like Lydia, were discipled, they were adults. We 
read in verse forty, that the Holy Spirit calls them brethren^ 
who could be comforted by the presence of Paul and Silas. 
Lifant children never are called brethren in God's Word, and 
not even in the Syriac, or any other language. One thing is 
certain, there were no children baptized here. 

The Jailor's Family, Acts xvi. 22-35 

The record is clear in this case also. The Jailor finding all 
safe brought Paul and Silas out of the prison, and asked 
what he should do to be saved. He was told how he and his 
household also might be saved, viz : by faith in the Lord Jesus 
Christ. We next find Paul and Silas preaching the gospel to 
all in the Jailors house- They did not preach to unconscious 
babes, if he had any. If he had, it was quite unnecessary to 
formally except them. When we ascribe anything to a 
family of which infants are incapable, we do not think of for- 
mally excepting them. Accepting the gospel, the Jailor and 
all his family were immersed the same hour of the night. 
Where, whether in the baths in the Courts of the prison — 
which w^ere wont to be, and are today in all Eastern prisons, 
as in most of ours — or in the river that flowed by the city, 
we are not told, but one thing we know, not in the 
Jailor's house, for after the baptism he brought them back 
again, or up into his house, for the Greek verb anago, means 
to lead up or to lead back, and of course they had been out of 
it — he rejoiced believing with all his house. We see here 
that all of his house who are mentioned or referred to in this 
record, were capable of both believing and rejoicing, as all in 



756 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Lvdia's house could be comforted, and of course I am willinor 
for such to be baptized. 

As these cases will come up again under another proposi- 
tion, I defer giving the opinion of the most eminent Pedobap- 
tist critics. 

In all the Acts of the Apostles, in all their recorded 
ministry, only five households are said to have been baptized, 
and of three of these, it is expressly related that all in the, 
house could perform acts that can be predicated of believers 
only. 

Why sir, the baptisms of households is nothing rare with 
us Baptists. A Brother near Kansas Cit}^ Mo., this fall bap- 
tized four entire households in one dai/, having^ thirteen chil- 
dren in them and no infants. Dr. Breaker who sits here on 
my left, has baptized already twice as many households as are 
recorded of all the apostles, and Bro. W. M. Lea of Arkansas, 
I see here on my right, has already baptized nine households. 
Eld. B. ^N". Crawford of Pike county Miss., has baptized seven- 
teen, and Eld. S. G. Jenkins of Oxford, Ala., thirteen; and in 
the last few weeks there has been published in The Baptist, 
which I edit, two hundred and ten household baptisms by 
Baptist ministers in the South, covering a less period of time 
than is embraced in the record of the Apostles' ministrj'. 
I will append the list to the record as the final refutation oi 
this argument from household baptisms.'^ 

* S.C. Kirkland, Hopeville, La., 6 : T. A. Kenton, Harrisburg La., 2; Ira 
H. Bees, Lampasas, Texas, 1 ; J. F. McLendon Carthage Texas, 4 ; P. A. 
Hainan, De Vails BluQ, Ark., 1 ; L. Ball, many and since, 2; G. D. Stan- 
ton, Canton, Texas, 1 ; G. A. Grammar, Yazoo City, Miss., 1 ; T. L. Tal- 
bert. Black Hawk, Miss., 1; J W. Wentworth, Shady Grove, Florida, 4; 
M. P. Lowrey, Ripley, Miss., several others 2; Caswell Smith, Haw Ridge 
Ala., 2; G. W. Martfleld, DeSota, La., 2; M. Lambright, Douglasville, 
Texas, 1 ; T. T. Eaton, Petersburg, Vnginia, 2 ; John Windham, Texar- 
kana, Ai'kansas, 2 ; W. A. Gaines, Chester, South Carolina, 2 ; R. A Lee, 
Carsons Landing. Mississippi, 2; J H. Barnum. Durhamville, Tennessee, 
41 ; J. G. Westerson, Woodville, Texas, 6 ; W. A. Agee, Town Creek, 
Alabama, 2; J. W. Creevelson, Illinois,!; O. F. Gregory, Charleston, 
South Carohna, 1 ; J. JVI. Hart, Eldorado, Arkansas, 11 ; H. P. Hamsted, 
Knox county, Tennessee, 1 ; R. A. Speer, Cherokee, Alabama, 2 ; B. A. 
Crawford, Pike county, Mississippi, 17; J. D. Fletcher, Lonoke, Arkan- 



Infant Baptism. 757 

Eld. J. H. Bomm, of Darhamville, Tenu., whom I well 
know, has baptized forty-one households in his single ministry, 
and may as many more before he dies. 

But leading Pedobaptist Commentators are free to admit 
that the argument from the baptism of households is of no 

force. 

Assembly of Divines. — " And entered into the house of Lydia : 
doubtless to confirm them in the faith which they had preached to them 
— Lydia and hers hearing of then' miraculous deliverance could not but be 
comforted and confirmed in the truth," 

Baxter. — " His house would not be saved for his faith, without any of 
their own" {Pai\ on iVl T,., on Actt xvi, 31), " They instructed him and 
his household, that they might indeed believe and be saved" (on v. 32).. 
■*' He and all his house were presently baptized, as having professed their re- 
solved faith in €hrist" (on v. 33). Further, "The apostles delayed not 
'baptism, when serious profession gave them right." 

Dr. a. Barnes." — " Salvation was offered to his family as well as him- 
self ; implying that if they believed they should also be saved. 32. To all 
that were in >-'is house. Old and young. They instructed them in the doc- 
trines of religion, and doubtless in the nature of the ordinances of the 
gaspel," — <J'm%. on Acts xvi. 31, 32. 
My next argument is 

The essemce and admitted symbolism of baptism not only 
dobs not warrant, but confessedly forbids and precludes 
the idea of infant baptism. 

I prefer to let eminent Pedobaptist scholars and commen- 
tators maintain the truth of this by their testimony: 

Pres. Edwards. — ^'Baptism, by r which the primitive converts were 
admitted into the church, was used as an exhibition and token of their 

sas, 1 ; W. D- Jordan, Hickory Hill, Missouri, 2 ; A M. Eussell, Forest City, 
Arkansas, 6 ; W. T. Fleenor, Missouri, 3 ; T. J. Humble, Columbus, 
Louisiana, 1; C^ B. Eagerton, Marion, South Carolina, 2; L. R. Bmriss, 
Baldwin, Mississippi, 2 ; J. J. DeBoise, Olive Branch, Mississippi, 1 ; P. 
B. McCarroll, Rockford, Tennessee, 1 ; W. G. Inman, Nashville Tennes- 
see, 3 ; E. R. White, Frier's Point, Mississippi, 1 ; S. G. Jenkins, Oxford, 
Alabama, 13 ; G. W. Durham, Carroll, Mississippi, 1 ; T. E. Muse, Ever- 
green, Louisiana, 2 ; J. Jones, Porkvihe, Mississippi, 1 ; D. H. Burt, 1 ; 
A. Fitzgerald, Emory, Texas, 1 ; H. Z. Livery, Quitman, Texas, 4 ; W. 
P. Throgmartin, Illinois, 3 ; B. B. Hinton, Buna Vista, Georgia, 1 ; N. 
Jordan, North Vernon, Indiana, 2 ; W. J. Slinker, Washington, Arkan- 
sas, 2 ; T. H. Pettit, Maytied, Kentucky, 1 ; W. W. Keep, Texas, 3 ; J, 
W. Lipsey, Coldwater, Mississippi, 6 ; L. R. Scruggs, Texas, 2 ; W. M. 
Lea, Arkansas, 9 ; J. M. D. Breaker, St Joseph^ Missouii, 10; Eld. Reese 
Texas, 1. Total 21Q. 



758 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

being visibly regenerated, dead to sin ;asisevidentbyRoni. vi. 4, 18, througli- 
out." "He does not mean only that their baptism laid them under 
special obligation to these things, and was a mark and token of their en- 
gagement to be thus hereafter : but was designed as a mark, token, and 
exhibition of their being visibly thus already J''> — Enqui. into Qual. for 
full Commu. 

Venema. — "Faith and repentance are pre-required in baptism. He 
who presents himself as a candidate for baptism, professes by that very 
act to be a Christian, declares himself to have passed into the discipline 
of Christ." 

C. Taylor. — "In baptism we profess death unto sin. . . . The 
apostle's purpose is one, though his similes be three. . . . He exhorts 
that (1) after baptism we should walk in newness of life: that (2) after 
transplantation we should conform to the holiness and resurrection of 
Christ: that (S) after crucifixion we should 'yield ourselves unto God as 
those who are alive from the dead, and our members as instrunients of 
righteousness unto God.' . . . We are now jirepared to understand a 
literal version of the argument, ' How shall we who are dead to siii live 
any longer therein ? Know ye not that whosoever of us are baptized 
unto a profession of Jesus Christ, ai^ baptized unto a profession of His 
death?'" etc. — Facts and Evi., etc., pp. 50, 50. 

Dr. Goodwin.— "He argues from the known and generally-received 
profession and practice of all Christians. Know ye not that so 7nany of us as 
were baptized — that is, whoever of us that profess baptism into Christ, pro- 
fess baptism into BQs death, as the thing intended by it."— Works, voL 
iv. p. 30. 

Vitringa: — "To be baptized into Christ is beyond doubt to be baptized 
into this, that each should profess his communion with Christ ; that each 
by that baptism, as by a sign and t^timony, should avow that he had be- 
lieved in Christ."— Obs. Sac , iii, 22. 822. 

RiGYiiTius. — " Men are not born Christians, but made such. No man 
is accounted a tehever till he knows Christ. Therefore he must first hear 
what belongs to the Christian faith ; and when he has heard and embraced 
it from his belief, he may be called a believer : and that the things which 
have entered his mind through his ears may by an (external) sign be 
submitted to his eyes, and may strike his mind the more powerfully, he is- 
dipped or immersed in water, in a river, fountain, pool or laver. And a& 
he had received three things ; — for first he received faith, and then by faith 
obtained the pardon of all his past sins ; and, nioreover, had the pledge of 
a resurrection to eternal life: so these things are signified by baptism." — 
In Facts opposed to Fiction, p. 54. 

R. Baxter. — "Know ye not that when men are baptized they are by 
vow, covenant, and profession, listed into the belief of a crucified Savior, 
who died for sin to save us from it ; and do profess that repentance by 
which we renounce it, as dead to it for the time to come^ Therefore in 
our baptism we are dipped under the water, as signifying our covenant 
profession ; that as He was buried for sin,, we aj'e dead and buried to sin ; 



Infant Baptism. 759 

that as the glorious power of God raised Him from the dead, so we should 
rise up to live to Him in holiness and newness of life" {Par. on N. T., on 
Rom. vi. 3, 4). "To be buried and risen with Christ signifieth, A being 
dead to sin, and alive to God and newness of life : and it is not only (as is 
feigned by the opposers) an engagement to this for the future, but a pro- 
fession of it also at the present" (Dispu. of Right to Sac.) 

Bp. Patrick. — "We are baptized unto His death — we are buried with 
Him in baptism." "We by going into the water profess that we are 
willing to take up the cross, and die for Christ's sake." — In Booth's P?ed. 
Ex. vol. i. p. 136. 

There was no Instant in the Church at Rome. 

I open the epistle that Paul addressed to the church, and I 

see that he spoke of all that were in Home, as '' beloved of 

God," "saints," and this significant expression in Ch. i. 8: 

"8. First, I thank my God through Jesus Christ for you all, that your 
faith is spoken of throughout the whole world." 

I turn to chapter vi. and read a few verses, from 1-8. 

This could not have been addressed except to a body of 
professed believers in Christ. Let the honest inquirer read 
the whole epistle, and see in every chapter abundant proof 
that all the members of this church were professed saints — 
believers in Christ. 

There was no Infant in the Church at Corinth. 

I am aware that for one generation, 1. Cor. vii. 14, was con- 
sidered the strong argument for infant baptism, but latterly a 
pure and honest criticism, even on the part of Pedobaptist 
commentators has exploded it. 

I will quote a few. 

LuTZ. — " If Paul had only thought of infant baptism, he could not pos- 
sibly have spoken thus." — In Stier's Words, etc., vol. iii, p. 329, Clark's 
Edition. 

Olshausen. — " It is moreover clear that St. Paul could not have chosen 
this line of argument, had infant baptism been at that time practiced." 
— Com. on 1 Cor. vii, 14. 

Neander, speaking of the distinction between the children here men- 
tioned and the children of heathens, and of their being " considered in a 
certain sense as belonging to the church," immediately adds : " But this is 
not deduced from their having partaken of baptism, and this mode of 
connection with the church is rather evidence against the existence of In- 
fant Baptism,'' [His of Plan., etc., vol. i, p, 165. Bohn's Edi.] — He 



760 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

teaches that this passage "testifies against the existence of infant baptism" 
when Paul wrote ; that if infant baptism had then existed, the epithet 
hagia, which in contrast with a^ai!Aarte is applied to these children,'' would 
have been deduced only from the sacred rite." 

Dr. a. Barnes. — "This passage has been often interpreted, and is often 
adduced to prove that children are 'federally holy,' and that they are enti- 
tled to Christian baptism on the ground of the faith of one of their parents. 
But against this interpretation there are insuperable objections. 1, The 
phrase, 'federally holy,' is unintelligible, and conveys no idea to the great 
mass of men. It occurs nowhere in the Scriptures ; and what can be 
meant by it ? 2, It does not accord with the sco.pe and design of the argu- 
ment. There is not one word about baptism here, not one allusion to it ; 
nor does the argument in the remotest degree bear upon it." 

Paul's argument, in a few words is this : — if the intercourse of a behev- 
ing wife with an unbelieving husband was so improper as that she must 
separate from him, then all of you would have to separate from all your 
children, for they stand in the same relation to you — unregenerate — un- 
baptized. 

If there is aii)' dor.bl: about it, uotice hcnv Paul addresses 
the Church, I Cor. i. 2, as a body of persons, " Sanctified in 
Christ Jesus," "-called Saints." Of theia Paul says : 

I Cor. i. 4 I thank my God alwciys on your behalf, for the Grace of God 
which is given you by Jesus Christ ; 5 That in every thing ye are enriched 
by him, in all utterance, and in all knowledge ; 6 Even as the testimony of 
Christ was confirmed in you : 7 So that ye come behind in no gift ; waiting 
for the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ : 8 Who shall also eonlirm you 
unto the end, that ye may be blameLesa in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ." 
9 God is faithful, by whom ye were called unto the fellowship of his 
Son Jesus Christ our Lord. 

This could not have been addressed to any Methodist So- 
ciety on earth — only to a church composed of professed Chris- 
tians. If any proof is wanting, chapter xiii. 13 will conclude it. 

" For by one Spmt are we all baptized into one body, whether we be 
Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free ; and have been aU made to 
druik into one Spirit. 

Kow in verses 27 and 28 we learn that this body is the visi- 
ble church of Christ on earth, and it will be confessed that it 
cannot be said of infants, that in the same spirit as the believ- 
ing adult they are baptized into the church, i. e., added to it, 
and my opponent, mark you, wont admit that there is a living 
infant on earth a member of a Methodist Society — nor can it 
be said that infants as such have been made to drink into the 
same spirit, with believing adults — for they have no volition, 
thev cannot, spiritually, drink in anything. 



« 
Infant Baptism. 761 

There were no infants in all the Churches of Galatia. 
Every member of these Churches who had been baptized, 
had been baptized into Christ and had put on Christ. Paul 
especially declares this in these words. 

Gal. iii. 27 For as raany of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond 
nor free, there is neither male nor female : for ye are all one in Christ 
Jesus. 29 And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed and heirs 
according to the promise. 

Each one of them all when baptized had openly professed 
^ to be united with Christ by faith — further, the force of the 
phrase ^' baptized into Christ" denotes, that each one had put 
on Christ, i. e., professedly declared themselves to be the dis- 
ciples of Christ, and because Christ's, then Abraham's seed, spir- 
itual, and heirs. Now no living infant was ever or can be 
Abraham's Spiritual Seed, for to become thus, they must be 
the Children of God by faith in Christ, Gal. iii. 26, that, no 
living infant ever did or can exercise, for " they that are the 
children of the flesh, these are not the children of God," 
Rom. ix. 8. 

I am willing for Eld. Ditzler's own witnesses to testify if I 
am right in this. 

CAiiViN. — "He uses the simihtude of a robe when he says, that the Gal- 
ations have put on Christ ; but he means that they were so grafted inu) 
Christ, that before God thej^ bore the name and person of Christ, and were 
reckoned more in Him than in themselves. 

Dr. Doddkidge. — " For so many of you as have been baptized into 
Christ ; and so have taken upon you the solemn profession of His religion, 
these may be said to have put on Christ, to be clothed with His character, 
and covered with His righteousness." — Com. on Gal. iii, 27. 

R. Baxter. — " For as many of yon as have sincerely consented to the 
baptismal covenant, and so been baptized into the faith of (.hrist, and re-- 
lation to Him, have thereby even put Him on as your garment, and wholly 
given up yourselves to Him, and so, as His members, are united to Him. 
And all that are baptized have professed this ; which the sincere perform" 
[Para, on Gal. iii, 27). 

Dr. Macknight. — "As many of you as have been baptized into Christ, 
have thereby professed that ye have put on the Yery temper and virtues 
of Christ." {Com. on Gal. iii, 27). "To put on Christ, is to follow His 
doctrine, precepts, and example." — Com. on Rom. xiii, 14 

J. Wesley. — " For as many of you as have testified your faith by being 
baptized in the name of Christ, have put on Christ — have received Him 
as your righteousness, and are therefore sons of God through Him." 



762 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Dr. a. Clarke — " As many of you as hace bee'i haptized .nti Christ. All 
of yon who have believed in Christ as the promised Messiah, and received 
baptism as a pubUc proof that ye had received Christ as your Lord and 
Savior, have put on Christ." " To be put on or to be clothed with one, is 
to assume the person and character of that one." " The profession of 
Christianity is an assumption of the character of Christ." Com. on Gal. 
iii, 27). '■'■ Putting on, or being clothed with Jesus Christ," says he, ''sig- 
nifies receiving and believing the gospel, and consequently taking its 
maxims for the government of life, having the mind that was in Christ." 
— Com. on Rom. xiii, 14. 

M. Henry. — " This faith in Christ whereby they became the children 
of God, he acquaints us, verse 27, was what they professed in baptism ; 
tor, he adds. As mxat y of you as have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ; 
having in baptism professed their faith in Him, they were thereby devo- 
ted to Him, and had, as it were, put on His livery and declared themselves 
His servants and disciples." " In our baptism we put on Christ, because 
we profess our discipleship to Him." — Com. on Gall, iii, 27. 

Refutation. 

Arg. XXXIV. (1). Paul shunned not to declare the whole counsel of 
God to the Church at Ephesus. 

(2). He did not declare Infant Baptism to be required of God as a relig- 
ious service or parental dutj^ 

(3) Therefore Infant Baptism is not according to the counsel or ordina- 
tion of God. 

Arg. XXXV. (1). If none were baptized during the Apostles, minis- 
try but such as were baptized into Christ and thereby '•'•put on Christ^''' 
i. e., took upon themselves, voluntarily the entire and sole jurisdiction 
of Christ — then infants should not be baptized for they have rko faith and 
can make no profession, and whatever others may do, is no act of obedi- 
ence on their part. 

(2). But none were baptized by the apostles, but such as were baptized 
to put on Christ, etc. 

Gal. iii. 27, For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have 
put on Christ. 

(3). Therefore Infants should not be baptized. 

Arg. XXXVI. (1). None but persons, which means accountable beings, 
are commanded to be baptized by Christ, or authorized to be by His Word 

(2) Elder Ditzler admits that infants are not persons, and all know that 
they are not accountable beings. 

(3) Therefore Infant Baptism is not authorized by the Word of God. 
Arg. XXXVII. (1) A baptism, that is not the baptism of repentance 

unto the remission of sins, cannot be called Christian baptism. 

(2) The baptism of an unconscious babe is manifestly not the baptism, 
etc. 

(3). Therefore, infant baptism cannot be called Christian baptism. 



Infant Baptism. 763 



DR. DITZLER'S TENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — It may be proper for me to 
guard against any misunderstanding as to what was agreed to 
between Doctor Graves and myself on covenants. He clearly 
saw, I presume, that we essentially agreed on the fact that 
salvation is only through the Abrahamic covenant. We dif- 
fer as to the Jewish church, he, as I understand him, assuming 
that it was founded on the Sinaitic covenant, whereas I con- 
tend it developed out of, and rested on, the covenant of re- 
demption made with our fathers after the fall, and renewed to 
Abraham, ratified and completed on the cross. As men's 
minds get confused on the different covenants, I prefer always 
holding the mind to the Oneness of the church, in the way we 
have alread}' argued it. 

Doctor Graves addressed me a letter proposing that we 
do not discuss the covenants, and we readily assented thereto. 
Our views have gone to record. 

Doctor Graves says in Acts, in all cases, faith and baptism 
went together. Suppose it was so — 

1. It does not prove that the faith was in each case that of 
the individuals baptized : for only Lydia's faith is named — her 
household is baptized. That is exactly as it had always been 
among the Jews. Only the Jailor is said to have believed — 
yet "all his house" was baptized. Only Stephanas believed — 
his household was baptized. But he says " the Jailor be- 
lieved — all his house believed." 

We beg to remind him that we only have his very bold asser- 
tion for all that. " He rejoiced, believing in God, (panoiki) 
with all his house." 

We must remind the Doctor that believe is in the singular 
as well as rejoice, in the Greek — only the Jailor believed so far 
as the record declares — only he rejoiced. The word panoiki 
is purely an adverb qualifying rejoiced. Yet out of this ad- 



764 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

verb — one simple word in Greek, we get the foar in English — 
" with all bis house," and used as if they all believed and re- 
joiced. Not a word of it. 

« 

He feels the force of the eight household bsptisms of the 
JS^ew Testament and seeks to break their force by denying 
there were infants in any of them. 

1. We hardly believe it would be safe to start up any street 
in this city and bet heavily that there were no infants in the 
first eight households you came to, even taking the row where 
the Baptist preach'ar lives. 

The old Syriac. made in Apostolic times gives additional 
force to it, by rendering it '' Lydia and her children" — " Jailor 
and all his children." It being made in that age tells us the 
very thing that is denied — all the children of the house were 
baptized. 

He tells us the symbolism of baptism is against infant bap- 
tism. Here he assumes its symbolism to be 1, What it never 
had been for 1500 3^ears, as be will admit. 2. What it could 
not have been in John's day — no such use then, he will ad- 
mit, not being named. 3. What it was not in Christ's day — 
and which he does not pretend to find a word supporting till 
some sixteen years after Pentecost. In Romans vi. 4, he as- 
sumes it is symbolic of death, burial and resurrection. 

But 4. There is no proof of it there or anywhere. Such is 
tlie futility ot his objection on the score of symbolism. On 
the contrary, no partj^ so perfectl}^ answers the true import of 
baptism as infants. 

The Doctor urges that those who could read are the parties 
addressed. And has it come to this? An Epistle is addressed 
to a church — it implies in his estimation that all its members 
read it Were not the prophets read to the church — in the 
congregations in synagogues in the Jewish church ? 

The terms we, you, ye, they, were all used, yet no one infers 
therefrom that infants were not in the church then, because 
they could not read. Common sense was exercised then as now 
in all such matters. When Paul tells us that those who do 
not work shall not eat — or Moses — " in the sweat of our face 



Infant Baptism. , 765 

we are to eat bread all oar days" — it. does not imply that in- 
fants are to be starved. 

As to all his authorities quoted and talked of, nine-tenths 
of them believe it refers to Proselyte baptism — an opinion he 
repudiated, and thus non-suits himself. He cannot take a 
matter, in itself wholly in doubt among all commentators, as a 
proof on another matter in dispute. 

In Corinthians and Ephesians God's church is addressed as 
*' saints," etc. These terms, he urges, cannot be applied to 
infants. Therefore, they are not members of the church. 
Now, 1. 1 Cor. vii. 14, children — including all — are called 
" saints' in the Greek — " But now are they — your children — 
holy" — saints in Greek. 2. In the 01d Testament the people 
of God are constantly called saints — called on to laud, and 
praise God. Yet all admit infants were in the church — all of 
them then. If these terms so often applied to a church full 
of infants, how could their continued use imply their rejection ? 

He quotes a number of passages where adults are implied 
as the actors and speakers — Heb. x. 22. "Let us draw near," 
etc. 1. Pet. i. 3 — ' Hath begotten us. " The church is "a 
royal priesthood, a holy nation, a peculiar people," etc. 1 Pet. 
But we reply that all these thin^rs, or the same class of things 
are said of the church or its members in the Old Testament. 
The very words of Peter are quoted from the Pentateuch of 
Moses. Yet it is one of the strongest of the kind he cites in 
the New Testament. For example — " Let all the people 
praise thee" — " Let all the house of Israel know." '^ Come, 
let us reason together." " How is the faithful city become a 
harlot!" " These dry bones are the whole house of Israel." 
Yet infants were in the church thus addressed. Hence all 
these objections fall in a body to the ground. 

The Doctor quotes 1. Pet. iii. 21, "baptism is the answer of 
a good conscience ! He then asks if a babe has a good 
conscience. He certainlv knows that the word " an- 
swer" in Greek — eperatcema means a " promise, a pledge, a 
stipulation — obligation — any of these previously given." 
Thus baptism administered to infants is a stipulation, " a 



766 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

pledge in advance," so the word is used, as Sclileasner, Wahi, 
and Suicer define and show. Hence there is nothing in this 
text against infant baptism. 

!N"ow had the gentleman wished to meet the issue as such a 
matter ought to be met, surely he could have laid out some 
great fundamental principle and stood by it, and " fought it 
out on that line." Surely if the ]S"ew Testament had revealed 
a religion or brought before us a new church of the bold and 
radically different principles he contends for — if a new church 
had risen up of such superior claims over the old, strange it is 
he is compelled to rely on the merest incidental remarks of a 
speaker here, and a writer there, to discover so great and mo- 
mentous an event. 

When so able, so distinguished and capable a controversialist 
as Doctor Graves — the Ajax and the Mentor of the Baptists 
South and West has to rely on such points, it shows how solid 
and right — how perfectly Scriptural is our position. Mean- 
time the Doctor raves terribly — he is dreadfully excited. Well 
he might be ! 

He again reads our Discipline, and quotes Watson and Wes- 
ley, then puts a construction upon them neither they nor our 
people ever thought of or intended, as he well knows. 
Though I object to some of the phrases in our ritual, because 
of the liability to misconstruction and perversion, yet the 
meaning intended is clearly pointed out, in view of our gen- 
eral teaching from our rise till today. Methodistic doc- 
trine never has called for modification and change like that 
of the Baptist church. By "being delivered from thy wrath," 
is not meant that there he is so delivered is plain from all we 
teach. We mean he is already by virtue of atonement passed 
into a state of favor with God, when born he is born under 
the full provisions of a merciful government. " The free gift 
came upon all men unto justification of life." See Romans 
V, in full. The prayer he makes such an ado over shows by 
its wording that he misconstrues it all. You read there such 
phrases as these — of the infant — " that he [or she] being stead- 
fast in faith, joyful through hope, and rooted in love." Who 
believes all this is in infancy, or takes place in the act 



Infant Baptism. 767 

of ba[)tizing liini? Dr. Graves pretciKl.? tliat wo li.>ld it thus 
to occur ! It reads, on, "may so pass the waves of this 
troublesome world," etc. Is that all during baptism? The 
preacher prays "that all carnal affections may die in him, 
and that all things belonging to the Spirit may live and grov^^ 
in him. Grant that he may have power and strength to have 
victory, and to triumph against the devil, the world and the 
flesh." So it goes. Does not all this show what we mean, 
that we pray for the entire future life of the child? Yet Dr. 
Graves and our foes give all this the opposite meaning! How 
unbecoming, how ungenerous, and how astonishing such a 
co^arse ! The address to the parents still more clearl}^ exhibits 
the same facts. They are "to teach " the child " to renounce 
the devil and all his works, the vain pomp and glory of the 
world, with all covetous desires of the same," etc., etc. 
Would learned men among us thus speak of infants as such? 
lN"otice, the heading of all this reads, " the minister . . . shall 
use the following, or some other suitable exhortation^' Dr. 
Graves tried to impress you with the idea that such form is 
imperative!! Yet the Discipline he held had that right be- 
fore his eyes ! 

We have now answered all that the capacity of our oppo- 
nents can urge against our cause on the point where they 
consider us more vulnerable than anywhere else. Instead of 
crippling or weakening our arguments, we are free to confess, 
we feel far more confident in them, more secure than eyer 
before; for, being sifted by the shrewdest minds, and tested 
by the severest forces that can possibly be brought against 
them, when we see such arguments as the best that can be 
brouo:ht, it increases our confidence in the truth. I confess 
to you that when I saw Dr. Graves' publication last August, 
on this question, I presumed he would bring to bear upon it 
a force — that such would be the fury of his onset and keenness 
of his lance, that like a watchful general, I went out on an 
unusually close inspection, pryed closely into every point in 
my fortifications, threw up some new earthworks, placed sev- 
eral commanding batteries in position, so as to sweep every 
part of the field, and then I felt — let him come on. Kot a 



768 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

point can he attack, not a parapet can he pass over. And so 
it has resulted. Our Bible argument we need not re-notice. 
It is complete. It need not now be restated. 

We showed that proselyte baptism existed from Moses on- 
ward always. Hence, 

1. All infants of Jews were baptized. 

2. The infants of all proselyted Gentiles were always prose- 
lyted — brought in with their parents into the organized fellow- 
ship of the Jewish church. 

3. All the infant children of all proselyted Gentiles were al- 
ways baptized from the days of Moses onward till the com- 
mission was given. Hence, under the circumstances the com- 
mission was as much of a command to baptize infants as it 
was to baptize adults, as the learned and clear-headed philos- 
opher of the Southern Revieio, Dr.. A. T. Bledsoe, tells us. 
There are set no limitations, no qualifications that exclude 
infants. It was at the end of three years, six months' labor 
to reform and spiritualize, confirm, strengthen and elevate 
the life of the church. In this renovated condition it is a 
good "stock," a ''good olive tree" to bear the engrafted Gen- 
tiles. Bring. them in also. So he had taught " Other sheep, 
I have, which are not of this fold, the church — Acts xx, 28, 
29, them I must bring in also, and there shall be one fold and 
one Shepherd." John x, 16. Into it Christ is the door. He 
did not destroy the fold, expel those within, or make a new 
fold, but brought Gentiles into the fold. 

We appealed to history. In the years 251-3, we saw si^:ty- 
six bishops of the most intellectual part of the earth at that 
period deciding that it was not necessary to wait till a babe 
was eight da^-s old to baptize it. The decision was unani- 
mous. Those bishops — the great body of them were preach- 
ers and vigorous men, when Tertullian and Origen yet lived, 
and of the same country, the same districts. It did not come 
into practice as an innovation then, between Tertullian and 
these bishops, most of whom went through fearful fires of 
persecution in their lives. It is preposterous to suppose that 
any part of the church failed, to baptize them; for had a part 
not done so, such a decision could not have been so promptly 



Infant Baptism. 769 

reached, being unauiraous. It is uiiasiuil to have on great 
questions, such a decision, never one a new one. Every 
charge introduced. produced great agitation and schisms. 

lN"othing of the kind occurs as to baptism cf infants. Ter- 
tullian's opposition shows it to have been unanimous in his 
day — A. D. 190. 1. The parties baptized in his day are of "in- 
nocent age." They are too young to be personally guilty. 
Hence "infants" in Bible language in the true sense of the 
word. They were too young to know what it was to be bap- 
tized. Hence"infants"—^an;w/?:— little children. They were too 
young to manifest what would be their disposition of mind — 
too young to "learn" — hence infants of tenderest age. Such 
are a tew of the many attributes of infancy Tertullian attributes 
to those baptized in his day. A. Campbell is honest 
enough alw^ays to call them infants, but such utter perverters 
of all historic truth as Orchard and that class, have even dared 
to assert that Tertullian is talking about minors simply ! 

Strange then if at that day the church was only in small 
part baptizing minors, people 18, 16, and 15 years old ! for 
Baptists tell us it began to be mooted in Tertullian's day 
whether or not minors should have baptism, etc. ! I 

Had a goodly part of the church not baptized infants Ter- 
tullian being a shrewd law^yer, a scholar, and rhetorician, 
would have allied himself with that party. He finds no such 
party He would have appealed to the old ministers and 
members yet living who were born, some in John's day — oth- 
ers a few years later — bosom friends of the immediate dis- 
ciples of the Apostles, and learned from them the real facts. 
Infant baptism was universal in Tertullian's day. Irenaeus, 
born before John died, from best information we can get, the 
bosom companion of Polycarp, John's disciple and bishop of 
Smyrna, refers to baptism as often fathers of that day did, un- 
der "regenerated to God," and names infants first — " infantes." 
As all must see, if infant baptism was not Apostolic, but a later 
innovation, it implied two things — 1. Entire change of the doc- 
trine of the church, if Baptist principles are to be presumed. 
2. A radical change in the practice of the church. The w^ri- 
tings of a swarm of most pious and learned men came down 
48 



770 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

to us filling up the entire period between the Apostles and the. 
days of the 66 bishops nanied. The whole mass of literature 
is as silent as the grave on any such ^change. We gave full 
historic quotations in our speech on the historic aspect of this 
question — seventh,! believe and need not repeat it here. — [Time 
out 



Infant Baptism. 771 



DR. GRAVES' TENTH REPLY. 

Mr. President. — I wish at the out-start to call your atten- 
tion to the evasive statement of Elder Ditzler as he com- 
menced his last speech, and I frankly express my astonish- 
ment! It was Elder Ditzler who privately suggested tome as I 
was rising to deliver my seventh speech that we discuss the 
Covenants no longer. I replied they are your stronghold, and 
I am going to thoroughly examine them, as we agreed to do. 
He replied I am willing to concede that they furnish no 
ground for infant baptism. I said if you will rise and state 
that to the congregation T will consent to discuss them no 
more. 

Elder Ditzler did rise and did state openly and frankly that 
he conceded that the old Covenants, afforded no ground for 
Infant Baptism and we had mutually agreed to discuss them 
no more. I repeated his confession word for word as it stands 
in the record uncorrected by him or the Moderators, and up- 
on that closed the Old Testament and opened the New and the 
Old Testament Covenant, made with Abraham or Moses we 
have from that hour discussed no more. This audience knows 
I have stated the facts in the case. Does Elder Ditzler wish 
at this late hour in the discussion of this proposition to go 
back on his word and honor, and seek to evade the force of 
that concession? 

I do not agree with him that the Covenant of Redemption 
was made with our first parents after the fall. I showed him 
that what he called that Covenant was made with Satan and 
not with Adam or Eve I I do not agree with him that the 
Covenant of Redemption was made with Abraham or any of 
the fathers or with any mortal being, but the Father made 
it with his chosen One, the Son, before the foundation ot 
the world, and Christ stood surety to the Father for his people, 
while Elder Ditzler declares it was made by God, the Father 



772 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

with Abraham, and Christ stood surety to Abraliara for his 
Father I ! 

No Sir, from his open surrender of the Old Covenants as a 
ground of Infant Baptism he cannot escape now from his terri- 
ble position — touching the Covenant of Redemption made first 
in the garden — and if so with Satan^ and then with Abraham. 

The letter I addressed to him was after he had surrendered 
the Covenants, and contained a suggestion based upon that 
fact ! I The letter is here to speak for itself, and the brethren 
who bore it I W^hat am I to think of this? 

Proselyte Baptism. 

Since my mere reference to authorities touching the ground- 
lessness of any argument for Infant Baptism based on 
Proselyte Baptism is treated so lightly by my opponent, I will 
put their very words in proof here, I will quote from the 
highest Pedobaptist authorities who have written upon this 
question. 

" Dr. P, Fairbairn, already qnated referring to the idea of Jewish prose- 
lyte baptism as existing before the time of Christ, an idea generally enter- 
tained in Dr. Wall's time, says ; ^' Later and more discriminating investi- 
gations, however^ have shown this view to be untenable." He says that 
" there is no evidence of a Jewish proselyte baptism till about the fourth 
century of the Christian era." " So far, therefore/' says he, "as regards 
the institutions of the Old Covenant, and the Scriptures of that covenant, a 
smaU approach only is made toward that state of things which meets u& 
at the gospel era^ when the fore-runner of our Lord came forth with a 
specific ordinance of baptism, as an initiatory rite to be administered to all 
who listened to his word ; and at a later i)eriod the apostles received 
through such an ordinance all believers into the church of Christ." {Imp. 
Bib. Die, Alt, Bap.) In his Her meneutical Manual, he says, " So far as 
the dhect evidence goes, the very utmost that can be said is, that indica- 
tions appear of Jewish proselyte baptism as an existing practice dm-ing 
the fourth century of the Christian era. And as there is no historical 
ground for supposing it to have been then originated, it may. with some 
probabihty, be held to have been commonly in operation for a certain 
time previously. But if we inquire when^ or A&w, we can find no satisfac- 
tory answer^ all is involved in uncertainty." — p. 275. 

" Dr. E. De Pressense (Presby.) thus writes: "Considered from an apos- 
tolic point of view, baptism would be allied neither to circumcision, nor to 
the baptism which was administered to proselytes under Judaism. There is 
between it and circumcision all the difference which exists between the the- 
ocracy into which one enters by birth^ and the church into which one en- 



Infant Baptism. 773 

ters by eon version. It is in direct connexion with faith ; that is to say, 
with the most free and the most individual act of the human souh 

As to the baptism administered to Jewish proselytes, it accom- 
panied circumcision, and had the same signification. It washed 
the neophyte and his family from the filth of paganism, and in- 
dicated his mcorporation and that of his children into the Jewish theocra- 
ey ; its character was essentially national and theocratic. Christian bap- 
tism does not transmit itself by right of inheritance any more than faith. 
This is the grand reason that makes us believe that in the apostolic age it 
was not administered to infants. We cannot quote any positive fact in 
^he New Testament that proves infant baptism : the historic proofs that 
have been alleged are insufficient. Ther« is only one doubtful case ; and 
those who attach more importance to the general spirit of the New Tes- 
tament than to an isolated text, do not hesitate to contest all its worth. 
JBesides, if we must confess that the baptism of infants began to invade 
the church in the second century, the x)rincipal idea of baptism still clings 
to it in all its essential elements. The rule is to require a living faith of 
those who demand it: it is surrounded with solemn guarantees; it is 
prefaced by thi'ee jears of instruction; and it is administered only after 
multiplied and vigorous proofs. " The baptism of infants, far from being 
traced back to the apostles,, is an innovation which coincides with the 
prevalence of Episcopal notions." 

Dr. Lardner^ — "As for the baptism of Jewish ]3roselytes, I take it to 
toe a mere fiction of the rabbisJ' " A Jewish rite," says Mr. Booth, "re- 
specting which the Bible is profoundly silent, beeoines the pedestal for a 
(Christian ceremony; aaid one presumption is erected upon another." 

Prof. ]\L 8tuart — " We are destitute of any early testimony to the prac- 
tice of proselyte baptissn, antecedently to the Ohxistian era. The origi- 
nal institution of admitting Jews to the covenant^ and strangers to the 
.same, prescribed no other rite than that of circumcision. No account of 
any other is found in the Old Testament ; none in the Apocrypha, New 
Testament, Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, Joseph the Blind, or in the 
work of any other Targumist, excepting Pseudo-Jonathan, whose work 
"belongs to the seventh or eighth century. No evidence is found in Philo,, 
Josephus, or any of the earlier Christian writers. How could an allusion 
to such a rite have escaped them all^ if it were as common, and as much 
required by usage as circumcision ' ' 

Dr. J. Bennett says : " The Talmud is so replete with folly and filth, 
that a Jewish education enfeebles, distorts, and pollutes the mind" [Cong^ 
iyec, voL viii, p. 238). Yet from a knowledge of such "folly and filth" 
we are to learn what is Christian baptism ! 

" Dr. Eatto, on proselyte baptism as existing before John's, and J ohn's 
being derived from it, says : " This opinion is not at all tenable ; for as an 
act which strictly gives validity to the admission of a proselyte, and is no 
anere accompaniment to his admission, baptism certainly is not alluded to 
in the New Testament ; while, as to the passages quoted in proof from the 
(filassieal (profane) writers of that period,^ they are all open to the most fun- 



774 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

damental objections. Nor is the utter silence of Josephus and Philo on 
the subject a less weighty argument against this view. It is true that 
mention is made in the Talmud of that regulation as already existing in 
the first century ; but such statements belong only to the traditions of 
the Gemara^ and require careful investigation before they can serve as 
proper authority" {Cy. Art. Bap.) 

I will now continue my examination of Kew Testament 
Churches. 

There were no Infants in the Church at Ephesus. 

In Paul's letter to this church, he addressed them as a body of 
Saints and faithful in Christ Jesus, who had been blessed with 
all spiritual blessings in heavenly things in Christ, — as a com- 
pany of persons who had been chosen before the foundation 
of the world to holiness and blamelessness in love, and pre- 
destinated into the adoption of children by Jesus Christy 
not through goodness foreseen, but according *Ho the promise 
of the glory of His grace," wherein he hath made us ac- 
cepted in the beloved. I will read a few sentences from the 
address of Paul to them : 

"In whom w« have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of 
sins, according to the riches of his grace ; wherein he hath abounded to- 
ward us in all wisdom and prudence ; having made known unto us the 
mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure which he hath pur- 
posed in himself : That in the dispensation of the fulness of times he 
niight gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heav- 
en, and which are on earth; even in him : In whom also we have obtained 
an inheritance, being predestinated according to the purpose of him who 
worketh all things after the counsel of his own will ; that we should be to 
the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. In whom ye also trusted, 
after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation ; in 
whom also, after that ye believed, ye w«re sealed with that Holy Spirit of 
promise^ which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the 
purchased possession, unto the praise of his glory. — Eph. i, 7-14. 

^o one who respects the divine record, can doubt that this 
was a church of professed believers— those who had heard 
and believed, and been sealed by the Holy Spirit. This 
certainly was not a church — -a society like any one Eld. Ditzler 
can find in the Old Testament — composed principally of infants 
and unregenerate men, but a model of the spiritual church 
of Christ,built up of living, precious stones. Let the inquirer 
read the whole epistle, and he will see that it forbids the idea 
of infants being members of it. 



Infant Baptism, 775 

There were no Infants in the Church at Colosse. 

Paul addressed this church as a body of persous who with- 
out exception, though once alienated and enemies, as then 
reconciled — and made complete in Christ. 

''In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made with- 
out hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circum- 
cision of Chi'ist." " Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen 
with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him 
from the dead."" And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircum- 
cision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having for- 
given you all trespasses. " "Blotting out the handwriting of ordinances 
that was against us, which was contrary to us, and took it out of the 
way, naiUngit to hiscross." Col. ii. 11-14. 

If the members of this church had been baptized, and everj^ 
one of them had been buried in their baptism — they had also 
been raised up with Christ through faith— -which cannot be 
said of an infant They were indeed a body of "faithful men" 
who were dead to sin, and their lives hid with Christ in God. 

For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Col. iii. 3. 

There were indeed children in this church, but thev were 
old enough to be addressed thus, 

" 20. Children, obey your parents in all things : for this is well pleasing 
unto the Lord." 

There were no infants in the Churches addressed by the 

Epistle to the Hebrews. 

(1). They are addressed throughout as holy brethren, partakers of 
the heavenly calling^ and not of those who drew back unto per- 
dition, but who had believed unto the saving of their souls." Heb. 
X, 39. This certainly was a church of professed Christians! 
They are addressed as, '^brethren^^ they had therefore publicly 
associated themselves as members with the church by bap- 
tism. ISTo Evangelist or Apostle ever addressed any unbapti^ed 
person as, " brother," nor should we. It implies a member 
of the same family, fraternity or organization. A Mason does 
not address an Odd Fellow as " brother" for the very good 
reason he don't belong to the same fraternity. I do not ad- 
dress my opponent as brother for he has never been baptized, 
he does not belong to the same visible family or fraternity 
with myself. 



776 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

2. They had all made a public pr'ofession of their faith. 

Mark the apostle's exhortation to them: "Let us draw near with a 
true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an 
evil conscience and our bodies washed withpure water." "Let u? 
hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering ; for he is faith- 
ful that promised; "And let us consider one another to provoke unto 
love and to good works: " Not forsaking the assembhng of ourselves 
together, as the manner of some is ; but exhorting one another : aud so 
much the more, as ye see the day approaching." — Heb. x. 22-25. 

These Jewish Christians well understood the type — the 
cleansing of a- leper under the law. They knew that blood 
was always before water. When found to be healed he was 
first sprinkled by the priest with the blood of the slain bird, 
mingled with spring water, and then before he was allowed to 
come into the congregation of Israel, he must bathe, immerse 
his body in water. And this last act was a profession that he was 
clean and fit to unite with the congregation. So says the 
apostle to these Christian Jews, having had our hearts 
sprinkled Avith the blood of Christ, of which that blood was 
a type, and our bodies immersed in pure water, let us hold 
fast the profession of our faith, clearly indicating that the im- 
mersion of the body in pure water was a profession of faith. 

S. The primitive Jewish churches were ivholly composed of pro- 
fessedly " first born" ones whose names w^ere registered in the 
Book of Life. 

I have explained this passage at length in a former speech, 
and given A. Clarke's full comment, and to that I refer all. It 
is conclusive beyond a question. 

I would here call attention to the testimony of the following 
distinguished Pedobaptist authorities regarding the import of 
the foregoing citations from the Epistle to the Hebrews. 

Abp. TiLJLOTSON — "This refers to that solemn profession of faith which 
was made by all believers at their baptism." — Works, vol. iv. p. 865. 

Dr. Doddridge — "Oiu* bodies in baptism washed in pure water, in- 
tended to represent our being cleansed from sin." — Para, on Heb. x. 32* 

Dr. Bloomfield — "The full sense, imperfectly developed, is, 'Let us 
hold fast unflinchingly the faith we confessed [in baptism], and cling to 
the hope involved in that profession." — Gr. Tes. Sup. vol. on Heb. x. 23. 

I have one more — concluding and conclusive — argument to 



Infant Baptism. 777 

offer in proof, that infant membership is not warranted by the 
Kow Testament. 

Theke were no infants among all the Jewish churches, 

ADDRESSED BY PeTER IN HIS TWO GENERAL EpiSTLES. 

He addressed two epistles to Christian Jews, members of 
churches, because they had been baptized, throughout Pon- 
tus., Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia — including the 
church in Babylon, members of these. Peter tells the churches 
what baptism was to each one of them, the answer of a good 
conscience towards God — 1 Peter, iii. 20. What this means, I 
prefer to have Pedobaptist scholars, including Jno. Wesley 
and R. Watson to testify, for surely my opponent will not 
gainsay them all. 

J. Wesley — "Through the water of baptism we are saved from the sin 
which overwlielms the world as a flood ; not indeed the bare outward sign 
but the inward grace : a Divine cm^dousness, that both our persons and our 
actions are accepted throngh Him who died and rose again for us" (Notes 
on N. T. on 1 Pe. iii. 21) — Can Christian baptism according to these writers 
be other than believers' baptism ? 

R. Watson — "Now, whether we take the word eperotema^ rendered in 
our translation 'answer,' for a demand or requirement ; or for the answer 
to a question or questions ; or in the sense of stipulation : the general im- 
port of the passage is nearly the same. If the first, then the meaning of 
the apostle is, that baptism is not the putting away the filth of the flesh, 
not a mere external ceremony ; but a right which requires or demands 
something of us, in order to the attainment of a good conscience. What 
that is, we learn from the words of our Lord; it is faith in Christ. — 'He that 
belie veth and is baptized shall be saved ; ' which faith is the reliance of a 
penitent upon the atonement of the Savior, who thus submits with all 
gratitude and truth to the terms of the evangelical covenant" (Theol. Ins. 
vol, iv. p. 407 j. Again, "St. Peter preserves the correspondence between 
the act of Noah inpreparing the Ark as an act of faith by which he was jus- 
tified, and the act of submitting to Christian baptism, which is also obvi- 
ously an act (ffaiW^ (p. 409. 

There could have been no infants in any one of all these 
churches — they were Baptist churches, one and all. 

I now sum up my second argument from apostolic teach- 
ings and practice. I have shown conclusively and proved, by 
a host of Pedobaptist scholars and commentators, that the 
baptism of an infant effectually destroys the symbolism of baptism^ 
and renders it, not only a meaningless ceremony, but makes it 



778 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

misstate the truth — teaph positive falsehoods-^— and that it .des- 
troys the perpetual analogy of Christian bapttism. It, there- 
fore, cannot be authorized, but is forbidden by the teachings 
of ^11 the apostles. 

I have shown that it was not known by the churches 
planted or addressed by the apostles, and specifically, that 
there could have been none in the followino: churches — i. e., 
Jerusalem, Samaria, Home, Ephesus, Colosse, Corinth, Baby- 
lon, nor in any of the churches in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, 
Bithynia, nor in all Asia, nor in any church composed of Jews^ in 
any pari of the world. If not in churches composed of Jews, 
then where need we look for it? 

I have thus placed before you the teachings of the New 
Testament, and by showing what these are, have successfully 
met all his arguments drawn from them. I have demonstra- 
ted that it was neither authorized by Christ, enjoined by the 
apostles, nor practiced by any apostolic church. That it arose 
in the second century after Christ, with the doctrine of baptis- 
mal regeneratioji and a host of other dogmas and traditions, I 
am free to admit. The first person to mention it was Ter- 
tullian, A. D. ISO, and he opposed it. The proposition calls upon 
Eld. Ditzler to prove that Infant Baptism is authorized by the 
Word of God — not that it was practiced by a corrupt section of 
the professed church in early times. I now wish to introduce 

The Testimony OF Thirty-seven Eminent Pedobaptists, His- 
torians, Critics and Scholars. 

I will introduce these with the recent statement of the 

ripest scholar and logician in my friends own church — the 

Carson of Methodists — Doctor A. T.Bledsoe, L L. D., editor 

of the Southern Review, published under the auspices of 

the Methodist Episcopal Christian Society. 

" It is an article of our faith, that ' the baptism of young children [in- 
fants] is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable to the 
institution of Christ.'' But yet, with all our searching, we have been un- 
able to find, in the New Testament, a single express declaration, or word, 
in favor of Infant Baptism. We justify the right, therefore, solely on the 
ground of logical inference, and not on any express word of Christ or his 
Apostles. This may, perhaps, be deemed, by some of our readers a 
strange position for a pae'dobaptist. It is by no means, however, a singu- 



Infant Baptism, 779 

Im!' opinion. Hundreds of learned psedobaptists have come to the same 
conclusion ; especially since the New Testament has been subjected to a 
closer, more conscientious, and more candid exegesis than was formerly 
practised by controversialists." 

In Knapp's Theology, for example, it is said : ' There is no decisive ex- 
ample of this practice in the New Testament ; for it may be objected 
against those passages where the baptism of the whole families is men- 
tioned, viz :— Acts X. 42-48 ; xvi. 15-33; 1 Cor. i. 16, that it is doubtful wheth- 
er there were any children in those families, and if there were, whether 
they were then baptized. From the passage. Matt, xxviii. 19, it does not 
necessarily follow that Christ commanded Infant Baptism (the matheteuein 
is neither for nor against) ; nor does this follow any more from John iii. 
5, and Mark x. 14-16. There is, therefore, no express coromand for In- 
fant Baptism found in the New Testament, as Morus (p. 215, § 12) justly 
concedes.' (Vol. ii. p. 524)." 

Dr. Jacob also says, ' However reasonably we my be convinced that we 
find in the Christian Scriptures '' the fundamental idea from which in- 
fant baptism was afterward developed," and by which it may now be 
justified, it ought to be distinctly acknowledged that it is not an apostolic ordi- 
nance.^^ (p. 271). 

In like manner, or to the same effect, Neander says : ' Originally bap- 
tism was administered to adults ; nor is the general spread of Infant Bap- 
tism at a later period any proof to the contrary : for even after Infant 
Baptism had been set forth as an Apostolic insitution, its introduction into 
the general practice of the Church was but slow. Had it rested on apos- 
tolic authority, there would have been a difficulty in explaining its late 
approval, and that even in the third century it was opposed by at least 
one eminent Father of the Chm'ch." (p. 229). 

We quote this passage, not because its logic does, in every respect, carry 
conviction to om^ mind, but simply to show how completely Neander eon-> 
cedes the pointy that Infant Bap ism is not an Apostolic ordina7ice. We might, if 
necessary, adduce the admission of many other profoundly learned psedo- 
baptists, that their doctrine is not found in the New Testaynent^ either in express 
terms, or by implication from any portion of its language.^'' Southern Review, 
vol. 14, p. 834-225. 

Let his declaration be put into capital letters — for it is all 

the aathoi ity for infant baptism any candid scholar will claim. 

We justify the rite, therefore solely on the ground of 

LOGICAL INFERENCE." 

Luther. — " It cannot be proved by the sacred Scripture that infant bap- 
tism was instituted by Christ." — In A. R.'s Vanity of Inf. Bap., part ii, p. 8. 

Erasmus. — *'Paul does not seem in Rom. vi, 4 to treat about infants, 
* * It was not yet the custom for infants to be baptized." — Anno, on 
Rom. V. 14. 

Calvin, — " Because Christ requires teaching before baptizing, and will 



7 So The Great Carrollton Debate. 

have believers only admitted to baptism, baptism, does not seem to be 
rightly administered, except faith precede." — In Wallace on Ghr. Bap. p. 52. 

LiMBOKCH. — ''There is no express command for it in Scriptm'e ; nay, 
all those passages wherein baptism is commanded, do immediately relate 
to adult persons, since they are ordered to be instructed, and faith is pre- 
requisite as a necessary qualification. * * •■■ There is no instance that 
can be produced, from whence it may indisputably be inferred, that any 
child was baptized by the apostles." — Com. Sys. of Div.^ b. v, c. xxii, § 2 

Bp. Burnet. — '' There is no express precept, or rule, given in the New 
Testament for the baptism of infants." — Expo, of 39 A t. Art. xxvii. 

Stapferus. — " There is not any express command in the Holy Scrip- 
ture concerning the baptism of infants." — Theol. Polem., cap. iii, 1 1647. 

T. Fuller. — ''We do freely confess that there is neither express pre- 
cept nor precedent in the New Testament, for the baptizing of infants." — 
Infant's Advo.^ p. 71. 

Cawdrey. — " The Scriptures are not clear, that infant baptism was an 
apostolic practice." " We have not in Scripture either precept or exam- 
ple of children baptized." — In Booth's Poed. Ex., vol. i, p. 306. 

Magdeburg Centuriators. — "Examples prove that adults, both 
Jews and Gentiles, were baptized. Concerning the baptism of infants, 
there are no examples of which we read." — Cent, i, 1. ii, c. vi. 

WiTSius. — " We do not indeed deny that there is no express and special 
command of God, or of Christ, concerning infant baptism." — CEcon., 1. iv, 
ch. xvi, § 41. 

Heideggerus. — " There be neither express precept nor example for in- 
fant baptism." — Corp. Theol. ^ 1. xxv, § 55. 

Archd Paley. — "At the time the Scriptures were written, none were 
baptized but converts." — Ser. on 2 Pe. iii, 15, 16. 

Bp. Stileingfleet. — " Whether baptism shall be administered to in- 
fants, or no, is not set down in express words, but left to be gathered by 
analogy and consequences " — Irenicuy>. p. ii, c. iv, p. 178. 

OEcoLAMPADius. — " No passagc in the holy Scripture has occurred to 
our observation as yet which as far as the slenderness of our capacity can 
discern, should persuade us to profess Psedobaptism." — In Booth's Pcedo. 
Ex., vol. i, p. 308. 

Cellarius. — "Infant baptism is neither commanded in the sacred 
Scripture, nor is it confirmed by apostolic examples." — In Booth's Posd. 
Ex., p. 309. 

Dr. DwiGHT. — " In the Seriptm-es " "there is no instance in which it 
is declared, in so many terms, that infants were baptized.^ — Sermon 157th. 

Staphilus. — " It is not expressed in holy Scri^Dture that young children 
should be baptized." — In T Lawson's Baptismologia, p. 115. 

Bp. Bartow — " I do believe and know there is neither precept nor 
example in Scripture for Psedobaptism " — In Dr. Wallace's Chr. Bap. 
page 59. 



Infant Baptism. 7S1 

Dr. Doddridge. — " We do not meet with any instance in the earliest 
primitive antiquity in which the baptism of any child of Christian 
parents, whether infant or adult, is expressly mentioned " [Misc. Works, p. 
p. 489) 

M. Martindale. — " There are no express examples in the New Testa- 
ment of Christ and His apostles baptizing infants." — Bib. Die Art. Pap. 

P.Edwards. — " There is neither express precept nor example for in- 
fant baptism in the New Testament." — Can. Rea., p. 9. 

M. Poole. — " I cannot be of their mind who think that persons may 
be baptized before they be taught : we want precedents of any such bap- 
tism in Scripture." — Anno., on Matt xxviii, 19. 

Dr. Bunsex. — " The Reformation accepted Psedobaptism, although its 
leaders were more or less aware that it was neither Scriptural nor apos- 
tolic." Of things beUeved to be destitute of Divine authority, Dr. B. 
speaks as "no more scriptural than infant baptism is The gosjoel is 
silent upon the subject of the sprinkling of infants " — II'ppol , vol. ii, pp. 
105, 226; vol. iii, p. 205. 

Dr. Stark. — "There is not a single example to be found in the New 
Testament where infants were baptized. In household baptisms there 
was always reference to the gospel's having been received. The New 
Testament presents just as good ground for infant communion. There- 
fore learned men (such as Salmatias Arnold, Louis de Vives, Suicer, and 
W. Strabo) have regarded both infant baptism and infant communion as 
innovations introduced since the apostles' times." — His. of Bap., p. 10. 

Dr. Jacobi. — " Infant baptism was establislied neither by Christ nor 
His apostles." — Kitto's Cy. Art. Bap. 

Dr. F. Schleiermacher. — "All traces of infant baptism which one 
will find in tho New Testament, must tirst be put into it." — ChrU. Theol. 
p. 383. 

Rheinard, Morus, and Doderlein, says Bretschneider, "affirm that 
infant baptism is not to be found in the Bible." — Theol. vol. ii, p. 578. 

Kaiser declares: "Infant baptism was not an original institution of 
Christianity."— 5i6. Theol. vol. i p. 178. 

Prof. Hahn. — "Baptism, according to its original design, can be giv- 
en only to adults, who are capable of true knowledge, repentance and 
faith. There is not in the Scriptui'e a sure example of infant baptism to 
be found, and we must concede that tlie luiinerous opposers of it cannot 
be contradicted on gospel grounds." — Theol., p. 556. 

Hagexbach, after maintaing tiiat infant baptism had no existence in 
the earliest apostolic church, says : "The passages from Scripture whicli are 
thought to intimate that infant baptism had come into use in the primi- 
tive church, are doubtful and good for nothing, viz., Mark x, 14; Matt, 
xviii, 4, 6; Acts ii, 38, 39, 41; Acts x, 46; 1 Cor. i, 16; Col. ii 11, 12."— 
His, 0/ Doc. p. 210. 

I have not time to follow my opponent into the hist(n'y of 

tliuc portion of the church that apostatized from the truth, 



782 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and. multiplied traditions and practiced commandments of 
men — for the proposition before us, limits this discussion to 
the Word of God. But I will affirm this, that that portion of 
the church entitled to be called the 'Hrue witnesses," never 
did practice either infant baptism nor sprinkling, and never 
symbolized with the Episcopacy, or the Papacy. Of the 
Baptists Sir Isaac Newton justly says: "They are the only de- 
nomination that never symbolized with the Papacy." 

I will affirm another fact that every student of history 
knows, that when you first meet with infant baptism, A. D. 
150, you find it opposed, and you find springing up with it 
sponsors, god-fathers and god-mothers— -and salt and chrism, 
and exorcism, and trine immersion, traditions all. 

And I will state another significant fact. The corrupt and 
pernicious doctrine of baptismal reijeneration— no salvation 
without baptism — originated the pratice of infant baptism, 
and another fact, every sect that has practiced infant baptism, 
has done so, and now does so, in order to confer grace or sal- 
vation upon the infant, as their Rituals, one and all, show. 
The implication is, that without baptism, the soul of the in- 
fant is endangered or lost. 

I will state another historical fact, admitted by Wall to be 
a fact, and a stunning fact against the apostolic origin, or that 
the practice of infant baptism was anything but general the 
first four or five centuries; and that fact is, that a large 
number of the most eminent church Fathers and writers, 
were not baptized in infancy — -nor until they had made a 
personal profession of Christ, when it is known that their 
parents were Christians ! 

"I produce the following passages, quoted by Dan vers, out of the Magde- 
burg Centicriators — authority that no scholar will question : 

"Chrysostom saith that the time of conversion was the only Jit time for 
baptism.^ ^ 

Hugo Grotius testifies : "That Chrysostom was born of Christian parents 
and educated by Meletius, a bishop. Was not baptized till pa^t twenty- 
one." And Montfaucon further testifies : 

"That his father's name was Secundus, and his mother's An thusia, both 
Christiaiis before John was born ; and that John was twenty-eight years 
of age when he was baptized." 



Infant Baptism. 783 

Jerome saith, "That, in the Eastern Churches, the adults only were bap- 
tized." — Epistle against the errors of John, of Jerusalem. 

Again, in his F/pistle to Pumachius: "They are to be admitted to baptism 
to whom it doth properly belong, viz., those only who have been in- 
structed in the faith." 

But Jerome was not himself baptized until thirty years old. Erasmus, 
in Vita Hieronymi, testifies — "That Jerome, born in the city ofStrydon, 
of Christian parents, and brought up in the Christian religion, was bap- 
tized at Rome, in the thirtieth year of his age." 

Here is a list of the names : Basil, Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodore the 
Emperor, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, Polycrates, Declaries, the Em- 
peror Constantine, and many nobles, and even Austin himself, of the fifth 
century. In addition to these, Pancratius, Pontius, Nazarius, Tecla, Lui- 
gerus, Erasma Tusca — all offsprings of believers, and yet not baptized 
till aged." 

Orchard pertinently remarks in a note upon this fact — "Since these 
names with others which could be recorded, are some of the most distin- 
guished for respectability, in the annals of history, one plain evidence en- 
forces itself upon our attention; that Pedobapti&m was unknown among 
royalty, courtiers, and respectable persons in Europe, at the period of these 
eminent men's births." 

This argument staggered Wall, and well it might. It, of itself, dissi- 
pated into thin air all his arguments and alleged historical evidences. He 
was forced to confess, in view of it as follows : "It seems to me that the 
instances which the Baptists give of persons not baptized in infancy, 
though born of Christian parents are not, if the matter of fact be true, so 
inconsiderable as this last plea [the sayings of the fathers] would represent. 
On the contrary, the persons they mention are so MANY AND SUCH NOTED 
PERSONS, that (if they all be allowed) it is an argument that leaving chil- 
dren unbaptized was no unusal, but a frequent and ordinary thing ; for, it 
is obvious to conclude, that if we can, in so remote an age, trace the prac- 
tice of so many that did this, it is probable that a great many more^ of whose 
birth and baptism we do not read, did the like. This I will own, that it 
seems to me the argument of greatest weight of any that is brought on the 
Baptist side in this dispute about antiquity." 

Curcelleus, a Presbyterian, says : 

"Pedobaptism was not known in the world the two first ages after 
Christ ; in the third and fourth it was approved hyfew ; at length, in the 
fifth and following ages, it began to obtain in divers places; and, therefore 
we (Pedobaptists) observe this rite, indeed, as an ancient custom, but not 
as an apostoUc tradition. The custom of baptizing infants did not begin 
before the third age after Christ, and that there appears not the least foot- 
step of it for the first two centuries." 

And if these crushing historical facts are not sufficient to 
settle this question in the mind of every candid Christian, I 



784 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

might add the testimony of the Councils of the first six cen- 
turies. 1 have time to add a few : 

"The Council of Elvira or Granada, A.D. 305, enjoins a delay of baptism, 
if the catechumeni act worldly; also adultery and intermarriages should 
be checked, and ministers of religion should not have strange women with 
them." 

"The Council of Laodicea, A.D. 365, required notice from the person who 
intended to be baptized, and resolved all should be instructed before they 
received it ; and determined that the baptized should rehearse the articles 
of the creed." 

"The Council of Constantinople, A. D. 384, decreed that certain persons 
should remain a long time under Scriptural instruction before they receive 
baptism." 

"The Council of Carthage, A. D. 397, in canon thdrty-four, declares that 
'sick persons shaU be baptized, who can not answer any longer, when 
those who are by them testify that they desire it.' Again, those who have 
no testimonials, and do not remember that they were baptized shall be 
baptized anew." 

Refutation. 

Arg. XXXVIII. (1) That cannot be an institution of Christ, for which 
there is neither command nor example in all God's Word, nor promise to 
those who observe it, nor threatenings to those who neglect it. 

(2) But Pedobaptists themselves assert that there is no command for, 
or example of it, and consequently there can be no promise to those who 
observe, or threateaings to those who neglect it. 

(3) Ergo^ the baptism of infants, unbeheving children, is no institution 
of Christ, and consequently must be a device of man, and to teach and 
practice it for a divine appointment must be a sin. 

Dllemma. — Christian Baptism is either a parental or a personal duty. 

If it is a parental duty, it is not obligatory upon the child should the 
parents neglect it, and therefore to be baptized is not the duty of any 
living unbaptized adult on this earth — which is absurd. If it is a^er- 
sonaL duty then, it is not the duty of any parent or priest to baptize an in- 
fant without its vohtion, choice — and it certainly cannot be obligatory 
upon any infant, which is destructive of the entire theory of Infant 
Baptism. 

Perhaps Elder Ditzler would do his people a favor by getting out of this 
dilemma himself and teaching them the way out. 

Note. — This is the letter referred to on page 772 : 

Carrolton, Mo., Monday night. 
Elder J. Ditzler ;— 

Dear Sir;- As you decline to discuss the covenants in connection with 
this proposition, and as you do not ground Infant Baptism upon them, it 
is very well, and I shaU not press it therefore. I propose we spend the 
day (Tuesday) upon it, and open on communion on Wednesday morning. 
Trusting this wiU be agreeable to your feeling, I am, yours truly, 

J. R. Graves. 



IxiANT Baptism. 785 



DR. DITZLER'S ELEVENTH SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators. — It is to be regretted that Dr. 
Graves reserved a number of things to this late hour, and for 
the first time introduces them when I have but the one-half 
hour speech, in w^hich it is usual to give a condensed sum- 
ming up of v^^hat has been stated. I shall have to briefly notice 
the new points he so late in the debate brings up, after virtu- 
ally doing nothing the past entire four speeches. I pressed 
my main matter on his attention promptly and from my first 
speech, when I was in the negative, as the record will show. 

He says the Apostles, etc., did not call people "brother" till 
baptized ! Ananias said, "Brother Saul, the Lord Jesus who 
appeared unto thee, etc.," Acts ix. He was afterwards bap- 
tized. So you see the Doctor's hobbiei wont do. 

Payioiki — "with all his house" in our version is purely an 
adverb, and he knows it, and can do nothing but qualify an- 
other word — a verb, in this as in most cases. It tells how he 
rejoiced — amidst his whole house — rejoiced in his family. We 
have no English word that completely represents it in a brief 
w^ay, hence the manner in which it is drawn out into four 
words, one in Greek. 

He calls for an exjpress comaiand to baptize infants, and tells 
us Bledsoe, Knapp, etc., etc., admit there is no such express 
command. Knapp says no "decisive mention" of it, etc., etc. 
Is there any " express command" by Christ to us — to any sinner 
to-day to be baptized? l!^ot a word of it! The express com- 
mand is to the Apostles — go disciple — baptizing them." Our 
submitting to baptism is a legitimate and just inferenee, but 
still it is solely on the grounds of several inferences that any of 
us is baptized. We infer 1. That the baptizer is legitimately 
commanded bv the nature of the commission, and his relation 
to it as a preacher. 2. That as he is commanded to baptize, 
he could not do so and no such command could be given un- 
less it contemplated our submission to it. So not only are 
49 



786 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

not infants expressly conQmancled, but adults are not. As to 
its not being mentioned, we met that with an overwhelming 
answer he can never meet on earth. As to Dr. Bledsoe, 
he expressly repeats that the commission, though it does not 
specify any class — men, women, boys, or children, or infants 
— "^Y ordains infant baptism.^' 

As to writer? before named, not naming Proselyte baptism, 
we showed. 1. The Bible is perfectly clear on that point. He 
has never even noticed in any way the array of facts we ad- 
duced. 2. Hosts of historians and writers who speak of 
Jews, of baptism, etc., when all agree Proselyte baptism was 
in practice, never mention it, and for the good reason, it had 
been practiced for centuries — since Moses — from the day it was 
introduced. 

He tells us in a certain council all who were baptized said 
the Creed. This is Baptist history again, and Baptist inter- 
pretation. Why in his speech he put it in evidence that the 
statement is utterly untrue : for in several centuries he finds 
three or four men who were not baptized in infancy, one or 
the other of their parents being heathen, or another accident 
or circumstance intervening, and this in the fourth and fifth 
centuries. N'ot a word of proof exists that repeating the creed 
was a condition of baptism ; same in adult cases. 

Do you not see that the Doctor treats this question — meets 
question^of history just as he does the Bible, by taking some 
incidental remark or merest accident, or incident, unconnected 
with the surroundings that would throw light on the subject, 
and interprets history by such means ? It is plain matter of 
history in TertuUian's day that the church baptized infants, 
to say the least. It was not named as restricted to any local- 
ity, part or section of the church. It was universal. In the 
same strain Cyprian records the facts — the council of sixty- 
six Bishops in North Africa, A. D. 251. In the same strain 
Origen records it while Tertullian expressly says — "The 
church gives baptism to infants." It is not a part — a section — 
"the Church." Here we see the whole body of the church is 
embraced. Now Dr. Graves seeks to avoid plain, simple, his- 
toric facts and statements of the most valuable writers — writers 



Infant Baptism. 787 

Who have transcribed the very copies of the Bible by which 
we vindicate the purity of our text, and yet to do this he relies 
on such unexplained, unsubstantial, accidental matters as he 
brought up ! Is that the way to meet facts ? 

He then quotes Grotius, w^ho was convicted by Wall of gross 
unfairness and garbling the text. He quotes Stanley, who is 
full of conceits and notions ; and Suicer, who proves infant 
baptism to have been universal in the very centuries you 
name. Here are his works before us. 

Pelagius, being born and raised in England, had never seen 
Tertullian's Works, for printing and steamboats, etc., were un- 
known then, and he had never learned of the momentary, — the 
spasmodic opposition of Tertullian. I cannot take up the points 
he raises on Pelagius' views, but simply say, they are w^rong, 
and I will expose them in the fifth proposition, when this 
matter will come up again. As to Cardinal Hosius, sixteenth 
century, he did all he could to crush the Reformation, and the 
most effective method was to split up the Protestants. As the 
Anabaptists were the weaker party, mainly uneducated and 
extremely fanatical, he did and said all he could to inflame, 
arouse and encourage them to every conceit and excuse, that 
Protestantism might be disgraced and rulers encouraged to 
put it down as dangerous to law and authority. It is in vain 
you quote such testimony, — it is nothing. 

We must now review our points as hurriedly as possible. 
We showed, elaborating all the points, 

1. That there was the church of God — his own church — the 
offspring of his covenant of salvation. 

As men are essentially and always the same, and need 
the same remedies, God is the same, we showed that the 
church is one and the same. It is one in its covenant, its 
Head, its aim, its principles. We quote Paul, Heb. ii, 12; 
xii, 24; Acts vii, 38, where the word, "the church" was ap- 
plied to God's people in the wilderness, in David's day, and 
applied to the whole of God's people in all time from Abel till 
his time — looking on it all as a unity. 

2. We analyzed it therefore, and found 1, the word church 
applied to all God's people of all times — embracing all in 



788 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

heaven and earth. 2. It is applied to the whole of God's peo- 
ple on earth — invisible church. 3. It is applied to a local as- 
sembly of God's people who meet at a given place or places 
religiously. We gave details how all this came about and its 
force. 4. We next showed that this church was spiritual. 

This we proved by showing (1), that Christ was the only 
foundation, its faith, its spiritual meat and drink. (2) That 
its ordinances had a spiritual import — symbolizing the purity 
of the heart, Eom. ii, 28, 29; iv, 11; Col. ii, 11. (3) That the 
Gospel was preached to them — Heb, iv, 1-4; Gal. iii; Rom. 
ix, ot which Isa. liii was a sample. (4) That they had rules for 
expelling unfaithful members as strictly laid down as we 
have now. (5) That as then, so now, as now so then, the 
rules were sometimes faithfully executed and at times they 
were not. (6) Hence that as now, and as in apostolic times, 
Jude iv, 9; 1. Peter, ii ; Gal. ii, 4; John iii, 9 — 11, so then, 
bad men got into the visible organizations and at times exer- 
cised a baneful influence. 

5. We then showed that infants were in this church — recog- 
nized in its visible organizations, and received its ordinances 
— the main two ordinances were circumcision and baptism, 
and both were applied to infants. Infants were in the church. 
Our opponents stated this themselves, and the Bible was em- 
phatic on it. 

6. We then showed that promises of endless existence, 
increase, perpetuity with enlargement, endless increase — inher- 
iting the Gentiles, were constantly given to this church. 
Whatever calamities might befall her, in the darkest hours 
these promises of future enlargement were given. They never 
were fulfilled in the ancient church prior to Christ. All agree 
here. They related to Christ's coming ; all are agreed here. 
We know before Christ's death the fulness of the Gentiles never 
came in. They only came in as single proselytes and their 
families. i!^ow all stand on a common level. Are these 
prophecies true or false ? Israel was not to be destroyed, but 
to ^^ inherit" the fulness of the Gentiles — they shall be convert- 
ed unto thee." See Isaiah xlix entire. 

7. Jesus came — lived a Jew, died a Jew, called Jews and on- 



Infant Baptism. 789 

I J Jews to the ministry. Three and a half years he labored, 
refijnning the people, uniting all their moral energies and 
forces. He teaches that there are other sheep not of this fold — 
them I must bring in also, and there shall be one fold and one 
shepherd, John x, 16. This is in perfect accord with all that 
we have said. He taught, also, that the Kingdom of Heaven 
— illustrated by a vineyard long leased out, — shall be taken 
from the Jews and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits 
thereof. Matt, xxi, 43. How could it be taken fro7n them 
and they charged with guilt in not making a wise use of it, if 
they never had it ? He never has touched these points. And 
he dare not introduce new matter by the rules of debate in his 
final negative. 

Christ acts consistent throughout. He reforms, goes about 
doing good He " repairs." He " restores." By rending 
the vail and giving the commission he lengthens the cords 
and strengthens the stakes. Paul, Eph. ii, 16-21 and Gal. iv 
entire, Roman xi. entire shows that the unbelieving Jews still 
clung to the mere outward form — the ritualistic forms of wor- 
ship. Its law had been "added," brought in" " till the times 
of reformation" — " made nothing perfect," " w^axed old," " was 
unprofitable." It was " removed," " taken out of the way." 
All this opened the way to the Gentiles, who "must be brought 
in." 'N'ow take up the actual record of events and they all 
eonfirrn and demonstrate this as the only true view. John 
the Baptist does not organize a church. This Dr. Graven ad- 
mits. The people he baptizes do not receive the Spirit — no 
purging away of moral pollution. They are prepared simply 
to repent, and believe on the Messiah wdien he comes. 

Jesus organized no church. All those whom he pardoned, 
blessed, remained in their respective synagogues, or churches 
local. Hence we see no new church organized. Christ re- 
mained forty days after the resurrection — no new church yet. 
On Pentecost we see these reformed, spiritual Jews, but no 
new chureh. Those who were converted on Pentecost and 
daily those times, were " added to the church " — " added to 
the Lord " — " the Lord added to the church" — not men. 

As, this is so important an issue^ is it unreasonable in us to 



790 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

demand fact — to require clear, scriptural statement for the 
leading points our opponents seek to prove, since we did so in 
every point. ISTot a thing is inference on our side. All is pos- 
itive fact — Bible record. Let it be met by the same. We 
quoted Scriptures, N"ew Testament mainly, to show 1. A church. 
2. It was spiritual. 3. Its members assembling for religious 
acts constituted local congregations. 4. Infants were recog- 
nized in the church. 5. Prophecies of perpetuity given to in- 
herit the Gentiles. If it ceased — if it perished, it never did 
inherit them, and prophec}^ all failed. He admitted John did 
not organize a church. We saw that Christ never organized 
a church in his day. Such were the records we gave you. 
We saw that 1. All Bible records thus tallied. 

2. All Bible doctrine (1) Prophets (2) the sayings of Christ, 
John X. 16; Matt. xxi. 43 for example and (3) Paul, Gal. iv.; Rom. 
xi. 12, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21 ; Eph. ii. 16-21, iii. 6, agree that the unbe- 
lieving, rejecting Jews were rejected— -"blinded," '^ stumbled," 
"fell away" " cut ofi^' "cast out," and the Gentiles "brought 
in," engrafted into the place made vacant by the outgoing Jews, 

3. Reason confirms all this. It is a reproach to the 
Almighty to suppose that he was experimenting on his own 
polic}^, and required from four to six thousand years,aecording to 
different systems of chronology, to have a church. I^ay, we 
showed that the very word church used by Paul and Christ 
was borrowed and quoted from the Old Testament Greek. 

^ow what does the learned Gentleman offer as an offset to all 
this? Let us deal in strictest fairness. He relied solely oo 
filing objections to our position — with " syllogisms" — every 
one of which assumed as true the very thing denied and in- 
volved in the question, and assuming as untrue matters wholly 
involved in the proposition ; e. g., he assumed that 
infant baptism was contrary to the teaching of the l^ew Testa- 
ment. Therefore, so and so ! And that was his logic ! 

Then he appealed to us to find it expressly named that an 
infant was baptized in the I^ew Testament. We demanded 
where it was expressly named that 1. John baptized a woman,. 
2, or had been baptized himself, or 3, where boys and girls 
■—children were expressly nam_ed as baptized in the New Tea- 



Infant Baptism. 791 

tameiit, though Baptists do baptize them even as young as ten, 
nine, and some eight years old. Yea, 4, let him find where the 
twelve Apostles were said to have been baptized, or 5, where 
they ever baptized anybody; or 6, where women took the Lord's 
supper, or 7, where Ananias was baptized, or 8, the seventy who 
preached, or 9, where the one hundred and twenty were bap- 
tized, or 10, where the great body of pious Jews on Pentecost 
— Acts xi. 5-11, were baptized, or 11, where the Infants that 
during the whole of Apostolic times were circumcised, are 
anywhere expressly named — that is, the record given, or it 
named where any one of the tens of thousands who were cir- 
cumcised, were said to be circumcised. He was dumb on it alL 

lN"ow if all these important baptisms are omitted, as he be- 
lieves they are merely omitted to be named, how could we ex- 
pect it to be recorded that the baptism of an infant, a thing as 
common as eating almost, should be specially recorde.d ? Thus 
we see the most popular hobby against infant baptism utterly 
falls to the ground. 

He then urges that Christ organized the church on the 
Mount — (Matt. v. vi. vii.) We asked for proof It was not 
even named — attempted. 1 The word church does not occur 
in the sermon. It is not hinted. 2. He gives not a hint 
about organizing one. 3. To organize a church means a 
visible, local congregation, with oflacers, etc. Where were 
such appointed or elected? In a few hours all the parties are 
gone — and in a short time they are sent over Judea to preach. 
Where is the organized church ? Why the word church was 
never used by Christ, so far as the record goes, but on two 
occasions in all his ministry, and the first naming of it is as 
late as Matt. xvi. 

We called for explanation on the point from the Baptist 
standpoint — bow it could be that John's baptism put no one 
into a church, and Christ without baptism did put them into 
the church, without Siuy local congregation — composed only 
of preachers traveling about two by two, but he passes such 
objects in silBnce. And by such amazing absurdities and as- 
sumptions as these, the infants are to be rejected ! These are 
the best arguments that can be brought ! 



792 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

As a leading opposition, he urged that the ancient church 
was founded on circumcision — hence a mere carnal, ecclesias- 
tico — political institution — a commonwealth ! But 1. We 
called for proof — none was adduced. 2. We demanded how 
the piety of Abel, the purity of Enoch, Elijah, the faith of 
Abraham, Moses, Samuel, the moral excellency and piety of 
Daniel, the Hebrew children, etc., all of whom lived by faith, 
'• died in faith," could come of a mere political institution ? 
He has not attempted an answer? 3. We then pressed, also, 
the fact that Christ was the foundation of their faith — by his 
stripes they were healed — I Cor. x. 3-4 ; 1. Pet. i. 9-11 ; Is. liii, 
entire, hence they trusted on Christ as really as we do. He 
passed it all in silence. As all in all ages trusted in Christ as 
the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, they are 
one with him. 4. We showed that the church existed before 
circumcision, hence not founded on it. 5. We showed that 
circumcision was not re-enacted or practiced till the Jews set- 
tled in Canaan — for forty years not a soul was circumcised, 
yet they are not only called " the church of Jehovah" then, 
but ate of the spiritual meat, drank of the spiritual drink — 
yea drank of Christ. 1, Cor. x. 3-4, while in the wilder- 
ness, and called " the church" then also, Acts vii. 38. 
6. We showed that the two ordinances baptism and 
the Lord's supper were administered and were purely 
symbolic as well as circumcision. Gen. xvii. 11, with Rom- 
iv. 11; ii. 28-29; Col. ii. 11; Ex. xii. 5-21, etc.; Ex. xxx. 18- 
20; Lev. viii. 6; Num. viii. 7; xix. 13; Ezek. xxxvi. 25 ; Isa. 
xliv. 3 ; Heb. ix. 10, 13, 19, 21 ; 1 Cor. x. 1-2 ; Ps. Ii. 2-9, etc. 
Hence the administration of circumcision was no more a car- 
nal ordinance than is baptism to-day, and it was as purely sym- 
bolic of purity, as the texts just cited clearly assert. Did he 
meet these facts? l^o attempt was made. He aims to offset 
all by asserting'that no law or provision existed for expelling 
unfaithful members. This we promptly exposed elaborately, 
or rather had fully anticipated in our first speech which was 
read. He asserted that bad men were in that " institution," 
hence it was carnal. We showed 1. That bad men — very 
mean men, crept into the church in (1) Paul's day, Gal. ii. 4' 



Infant Baptism. 793 

(2) in Jiide's day, Epis. to Jude, v. 4-9; (3) in Peter's day, 1. 
Epis. ii. 4-11; and in John's day, 3. Epis. v. 9-11. 

2. That bad men are in his and our churches to-clay, too 
many by odds. Hence to rely on such a fact for argument 
was astonishing. Such were the leading objections he offered 
to our facts from the Bible. 

We showed that before baptism was ordained or named in 
the Old Testament, provision was made for incorporating Gen- 
tiles with their infant offspring into the Jewish church. 
That one law and one custom, and one ordinance should be 
to both. Baptism was instituted after this event. Hence as a 
Jew could not approach the altar without purification through 
baptism, as symbolic of a purified heart, much less could a 
Gentile approach into the congregation or the church un- 
cleansed. We detailed the Bible facts. They always brought 
in their infants with ihem. Thus were they proselyted — dis- 
cipled. This continued up till the commission was given. As 
the Apostles were all Jews, Christ a Jew, and no restrictions 
were laid on, but an adherence to the past custom commanded 
— " all things whatsoever I have commanded you" — " I came 
not to destroy, but to fulfill" — it enjoined infant baptism as 
much as adult baptism. 

He relied, finally, on " disciple" as excluding infants. He 
asserted that it implied previous teaching. " You cannot teach 
an infant, hence he cannot be baptized. We replied — 

1. It doesnot imply previou 5 teaching. This we proved, 
(1) by the greatest of scholars. (2) by Christ's process of dis- 
cipling. Matt. iv. and ix. 9. (3) by the disciplingof all infants 
of converted Gentiles with their parents. (4) by jN'um. iii. 28, 
where 8,600 infants a month old and upward were put in a 
state of discipleship for future use. 

2. We showed that if his interpretation and position on 
that point were correct, still he was wrong, and we right, be- 
cause (1) Timothy was a disciple when hrephce an infant. He 
had been " taught" " from infancy" — -2. Tim. iii. 15-17, (2) 
from Doctor Graves' position as soon as any one is capable of 
being taught, he is capable of being baptized. But at two, twa 
and a half, and three, four and five years old — varying those 
ages as degrees of capacity are found, infants are taught, and: 



794 The Great Carrollton Debate. ' 

taujD^lit inosc N'aluable and impressive lessens. In those ages, 
the most enduring impressions are made — from two to five 
years old. In Bible and church phraseology, this is infancy. 
In this age — in this period the seeds are sow^n — the lessons im- 
Dressed in vast numbers of cases that make or defeat all future 
character. By the commission we are commanded to baptize 
our infanta, even if Doctor Graves' interpretation should be 
excepted, unsupported as it is. You may not evade that duty. 
It is a command by Jesus Christ. We appealed to History. 
We found that in the year 90 after John's death or 89, rather, 
Tertullian found baptism of infants a universal practice in the 
church. Origen, born 84 years after John's death found it uni- 
versal. Irenseus, born before John's death found it univer- 
sal. The 66 bishops 150 years after John's death found it uni- 
versal, in the most cultivated part of the civilized world. We 
showed that the entire space between this council and the 
Apostles — between Origen or Tertullian and the Apostles was 
covered by Papias, Justin Mart3'r, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
Ireuseus, Polycarp, Ignatius— most holy, learned and pious 
men. Had infant baptism entered the church during this 
time at any point, a storm of opposition would have met it, 
and a world of discussion ensued. ]N'o such fact occurred. Its 
entrance would have implied 1. J^ew doctrines. 2. A radical 
change in practice. No such change could have come in with- 
out a fearful commotion and schisms almost endless. Not a 
trace of any such thing appears. Hence it w^as Apostolic. 
Tertullian opposes it as an existing practice of the church — as 
much so as the baptizing of "young people,'' "widows" or 
any other class whose baptism he opposes in the same para- 
graph with the other. 

Gentlemen Moderators, we have done our duty. Let every 
one do his— bring up your children in the way they should go 
— in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. Earliest im- 
pressions are always the most lasting. — [T^me out] 

[At the close of Dr. Graves' reply to the above, it was urged by Dr. 
Ditzler that some new matter was introduced by Dr. Graves, e. g. — his 
strictures on parvuH as used by Tertullian,- and Irenseus' use of regenerated^ 
and several other points that on his part had not been introduced, but 
could be replied to under proposition 5th, where this matter would come 
up again. See 1st Reply on Prop, v.] 



Infant Baptism. 795 



DR. GRAVES' ELEVENTH CLOSING REPLY. 

Mr. President : — My opponent has concluded his argument 
to prove that Infant Baptism, as practiced by the M. E. Church 
South, for this was the proposition accepted for discussion by 
Eld. Ditzler's committee, is authorized by the word of God. 
Has he shown any authority in God's Word for it? for 
a positive law must ^e grounded in precept, or clear and 
long continued example, says Blackstone, and so say all 
jurists. Has Eld. Ditzler given you a precept or command 
found in the Bible? ISTot one. Has he so much as claimed 
that he has? Never once, nor intimated that he has. 
Has he quoted an example of Infant Baptism in either Testa- 
ment? l^ot one, nor does he claim to have done so. He has 
published to the world that the commission is the only law by 
which to baptize any one, and has he found authority in it? 
He has scarcely mentioned it in the whole discussion. What 
has he based the practice upon? Upon the identity of the 
church in all ages, and the covenant — made in the garden 
with Eve, he said, but I showed him that what he called a 
covenant there, was made with Satan — that called the church 
into existence, and which covenant was renewed to Abra- 
ham, re-establishing the church in his family, that con- 
tinued through all the ages until this day ; and since item- 
braced children in its covenant provisions at the beginning, 
it embraces them to-day. In reply to all this, I first asked 
him to define what he meant by church as he used it, and 
he gave me the definition of what is called the "invisible 
church"— the whole company of the saved in Heaven ! 

I have repeatedly asked him if he would endorse the defini- 
tion of church found in the articles of his own Discipline, and 
he has refused for three days to answer me. He has known 
from the first day that it would be certain death to him to 
define correctly a visible church, or to endorse the article in 
the Discipline, since that church never existed before the advent 



796 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of Christ, for according to his own authors, without Christian 
baptism there cannot be and there never was a visible church. 
In his invisible church there never was an ordinance of any kind, 
and of course no baptism, nor was there ever a living infant 
and how then could this church in any way authorize infant 
baptism ? 

But I showed that there was no church in tlie Garden — or 
Satan was the head of it — nor in the family of Abel, or ^oah, 
or Abraham, Isaac or Jacob. I conclusively demonstrated 
that the Covenant of Redemption was never made with mortal 
sinfal flesh, and that the covenant with Noah or the covenants 
made with Abraham, whether considered as two or one, or 
the covenant at Mount Sinai, never called a Christian church 
into existence, and therefore could in no sense warrant Infant 
Baptism. 

After six speeches, Elder Ditzler confessed to the congre- 
gation that he surrendered those covenants — the covenants we 
have been discussing — as atforvding any ground for Infant 
Baptism, and upon this surrender of the covenants, which of 
course surrendered with it the whole church identity argu- 
ment, I closed the Old Testament, since it confessedly fur- 
nished no authority for Infant Baptism. 

So much at least has been accomplished by this debate, so 
far as Methodists South are concerned. The argument for 
Infant Baptism as heretofore based on the Covenant of Circum- 
cision, is openly surrendered and must be abandoned so long 
as Elder Ditzler bears the endorsement of the Bishops of his 
church. 

His proposed argument was that drawn from analogy be- 
tween the Old and l^ew Testament Churches, but it broke 
down with him, but suppose it had not; analogy can prove 
nothing. 

Leaving the Old he opened the !N'ew Testament, but not a 
precept for it or example of Infant Baptism, has he produced to 
authorize it, and if he had found authority for the practice, it 
was still incumbent upon him to show that it was practiced to 
wash away the guilt of original sin and to deliver the infant 
from God's wrath, as his church teaches, by Wesley, by her 
standard writers, and the Discipline. 



Infant Baptism. 797 

He has sketched through the New Testament, asking me 
a multitude of questions and claiming that certain passages 
are in harmony with the practice, or render it probable. 

I think I have fully answered or indicated my answers to 
all his questions which I deem relevant to this subject, and 
I have guarded against wasting time on irrelevant matters, 
with which his speeches have abounded. My answers and the 
difficulties I presented, by way of replication,^! will briefly 
sum up here, 

1. He asked me ivhen the church or Christ's visible king- 
dom was '• set up?" I answered, The gathering of the first 
material or subjects was accomplished by John the Baptist, 
the first ordained minister of the Gospel, and he was ordained 
and commissioned by the King himself as Herald, the first 
officer of his staff. John made the proclamation and terms of 
amnesty and peace, and did make ready a people, subjects for 
his Lord, by immersing in the Jordan those who gave him 
evidence of repentance toward God and faith in the Messiah. 

And these subjects Christ accepted, and assumed jurisdic- 
tion over them. We see here the essential elements of 
a kingdom. 1. A king; 2. Subjects; 3. Jurisdiction claimed 
and acknowledged ; 4. Territory. 

" Bride" is preeminently one of the titles Christ gives his 
church. John said of Jesus, after he had received these sub- 
jects, "he that hath the Bride, is the bridegroom," and he 
could as properly have said, "he that hath the kingdom is the 
king." 

We have here the germ, the " miistard-seed," state of the 
Kingdom of Heaven that had never appeared on earth before, 
set up, as Daniel prophesied it would be, in the days of the 
kings of the fourth universal Empire, the Roman, and under 
the reign of a Caesar. I have affirmed and do affirm that to 
have been a real visible organization comprised entirely of 
subjects immersed upon a profession of repentance and faith. 

1. It was an organization^ that could be entered. 

"But the publicans and harlots go into the kingdom of God before you 
—Matt. xxi. 31. 



79S The Great Carrollton Debate. 

2. The cvfrnnce r-oald he ".?7<?/^ i(p," which is net true of the 

ill visible churcli if there be one. 

"But woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye shut up 
the kingdom of heaven against men : for ye neither go in yourselves^ neither 
suffer ye them that are entering to go in." Matt, xxiii, 13 

3. li could be violently assailed and suffer at the hands of its ene- 
mies, 

"12. And from the days of John the Baptist until now the Idngdom of 
heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force." — Matt. xi. 12, 

This invisible kingdom, if there be one, cannot be assaulted 
or injured, for biadzo, rendered in our version "suffereth vio- 
lence" means to suffer injury^ outrage^ wrong — as ^^biadzesnai 
tade^^ "I am wronged herein," Soph. Ant. 66, biadzesthai par- 
thenon, to do violence to, or force a maiden— nor could the in- 
visible state be taken by force — arpadzo, means "to tear, ravish 
away, to seize and overpower" — and if it had had an existence 
in the bosom of these Jews for thousands of years, why had it 
not been assailed, opposed and maltreated before? 

If this expression means "getting religion" as my friend 
claims, how is it that it is so much harder work from the days 
of John the Baptist until now, than from the days of Abel, 
Abraham or Moses until John ? 

4^. It had never been preached before, and men invited to enter it, 
for it had not existed. "For the law and the prophets 
were until John ; since that time the kingdom of God is 
preached, and every man presseth into it," Luke xvi. 16. The 
gospel of man's salvation had been preached, but the church 
had not been opened and men invited to enter it. 

5. It' was an organization that could come nigh and unto the 
jyeople. "And say unto them, the kingdom of God is come 
nigh unto you," Luke x. 9-11. "But if I cast out devils by the 
Spirit of God, then the kingdom of God is come unto you" — 
Matt. xi. 11-28. Luke says "upon you" x. 20. The invisible 
kingdom is never nearer at one time than another, and it never 
is said to come unto or upon men, and if Christ had had a 
visible church among and of that people for four thousand years 
he could not say it had at that time come nigh or unto them. 

6. As it was an organization that had been brought to and set up 
among ^ the Jews in the very capital of their nation and its privileges 



Infant Baptism, 799 

offered to them, so it could be taken from them. This fact clearly 
explains the prophecy of Christ, Matt. xxi. 43, which was ful- 
filled when the gospel and this self-same gospel church was 
taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles, and until this 
day especially belongs to them. This meets "the kingdom shall 
be taken away from you, " of Elder Ditzler's argument from 
this passage, and throws the clearest light upon another. I will 
tell him that in the figure of the "Olive Tree" which he has so 
misinterpreted and misapplied, the "good olive tree" repre- 
sents the Christian church, on this we are agreed, but I say that 
church was established during the ministry of John and Christ. 
It was at first and for years composed entirely of Jews, and 
these were as the first-fruits of the nation from the preaching 
of the Gospel, and were acceptable unto God, and an earnest 
that the lump and mass of the nation, will ultimately be gath- 
ered and received, and so the day cometh when all Israel, 
then existing shall be saved — in that day when the promised 
Deliverer shall come to Zion. 

Let the candid inquirer read the whole of the eleventh chap- 
ter of Romans by the light of this fact, and it is as clear as 
unclouded noonday. The Root was Christ and he, a Jew, 
that furnished fatness to the good olive tree — the church — 
into which, the Jews were introduced by faith in which 
while they did stand, they stood by faith, and for the lack 
of which they were broken off", rejected, and the Gentiles 
introduced by faith, in which they stand by faith, and from 
which they will be broken ofl", and cast away if they do 
not believe. The chapter is a delightful prophecy of the re- 
storation and final salvation of the Jews as a people, that 
when the times of the Gentiles shall have been fulfilled, 
then the remnant of Jacob that shall -be left shall be turned 
unto the Lord, and that prophecy shall be fulfilled when "a na- 
tion will be born in a day." Paul tells us that as the casting away 
of Israel redounded unto the riches of the Gentiles, the receiv- 
ing of them will be as life from the dead to the Gentiles. 
Millions of Gentiles will be converted to the faith of the Gos- 
pel when God fulfills his promise to the fathers, and this ex- 
plains, as I have before intimated, the passage so misapplied 



8oo The Great Carrollton Debate. 

by Eld. Ditzler. Acts xv. 16. "After this I will retu.-n and 
build again the tabernacle of David which is fallen down, and 
I will build up the ruins thereof, and I will set it up." This 
has no reference whatever to building up again the visible 
church of Christ which had fallen into ruins, for Daniel had 
prophesied of Christ's kingdom that when set up, it should 
never be broken in pieces; and Christ had said that the gates 
of hell shall not prevail against it — but this was spoken of Da- 
vid's literal House, the Royal Throne of his Kingdom, now 
long fallen down and in ruins, then to be set up, and David's 
Son, the antitypical Solomon to reign upon it forever. This 
passage as well as that of the Olive Tree has sole reference to 
the restoration of the Jews in the " latter days," and their con- 
version to Christianity, when they will be grafted along with 
the Gentiles by faith in Christ into his Church, which had 
been aforetime offered to them by John, by Christ and the 
apostles, but which the mass of them had rejected against 
their own souls, and therefore it had been hidden and taken 
from them. As I told him when he introduced it, this church 
never had a non-believing infant or any but professed be- 
lievers, for all in it stand hj faith oi which infants are incapable. 

I have also indicated to him that he could not have intro- 
duced a ground to authorize Infant baptism more fatal to his 
cause than Proselyte baptism. 

Let me review it before you, for if he has any other ground 
left him, I cannot find it, and this is quicksand hQwed^th. his feet. 

Eld. Ditzler's position, and those who stand with him is, 
that John's and Christ's baptism was but a continuation of 
Proselyte baptism, and as all the children of the family were 
baptized with their Gentile parents, so all the children how- 
ever young, of parents who are proselyted to Christ, should be 
baptized. 

^ovv grant that Proselyte baptism had existed, before the 
days o{ John, which the latest and ripest scholarship of the 
age agree in denying, let us see what good the rite will do 
his cause. 

1. If Proselyte Baptism had existed one thousand years, it 
was at best a man's invention, one of the traditions of the El- 



Infant Baptism. 8oi 

ders, /or God never commanded it. This fact all scholars admit. 
Infant Baptism then is but a tradition of Judaism. 

2. But no Jew with his children ever submitted to Prose- 
lyte Baptism. It was not a law unto Jews, and yet John bap- 
tized Jews as well as Gentiles, but never told the Jew or 
Gentile to bring their infant children along with them. 

If Christian baptism is but a continuation of Proselyte bap- 
tism, then no Jew could ever have been or can now be bap- 
tized. 

But the Gentile proselyte could bring his children and slaves 
with him, however old. Yet Eld. Ditzler will only admit 
infant children. Where is his law for cutting off' children fifteen 
or fifty years old ? By that law I will cut off' the non-believing 
infant. But the Gentile could bring only his own children 
to Proselyte Baptism. Yet Eld. Ditzler claims the right to 
baptize the infants of all unbelievers as well as believers, 
Jews as well as Gentiles. 

But according to the law of Proselyte Baptism, the one bap- 
tism of the father and his children, sufficed for all succeeding 
generations. There was no Proselyte Baptism required of the 
children of his children, forever ; they were, de lege, Jews. Yet 
Eld. Ditzler preaches the duty of the children of each family 
to be baptized in their generation as their fathers were. By 
what law ? But Proselyte Baptism incorporated the children 
of the Proselytes into Eld. Ditzler's Jewish church, and gave 
them a rite to the Passover, and all the privileges of it. Yet 
Eld. Ditzler declares that no infant or child he administers his 
Proselyte baptism to is in any sense, a member of the churcK; 
is not numbered with them, and is not entitled to the Lord's 
Supper which came in lieu of the Passover. How is this? 

But finally, Proselyte baptism was by immersion of the whole 
body in water by the proselyte himself, and yet Eld Ditzler 
teaches sprinkling in place of immersion. And he would not 
receive it as baptism in any sense if the subject should dip 
himself or sprinkle water upon himself! How is this ? 

But I have put it in proof that the theory that p^^oselyte 

baptism existed before John the Baptist's day, which years 

ago was advocated by Wall and Lightfoot and others, has been 
50 



8o2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

exploded and relinquished by all later scholars. I know of 
no living standard scholar who now holds to it. I have quoted 
Fairbairn, Pressense, Stuart, and others. > 

What must the Christian-thinking portion of this audience 
think when they hear Elder Ditzler rest Infant Baptism upon 
Proselyte baptism, at best, but a Eabbinical tradition and 
not instituted for ao-es after the law of Christian Baptism 
was given! This, so far, is his firmest foundation, and it is 
quicksand. My opponent, as you all must have observed, has 
avoided the commission as he would a pest house, and yet he 
may in the end claim that because it does not in so many 
words forbid the baptism of infants, it allows, and therefore 
ordains it! Cannot the Catholic as justly claim that the com- 
mission ordains the baptism of mules and bells ? I will say this 
and no more touching the commission here, as we shall spend 
a whole day upon it when we reach the fifth proposition. 
When Elder Ditzler claims that it addresses or embraces 
infants, that moment he as openly consigns every unbaptized 
infant to perdition, as Wesley and the General Conference do 
in the Doctrinal Tracts, and as Elder Ditzler does impliedly 
when he sprinkles an infant using the Ritual of the Disci- 
pline. 

I have showed that John baptized no children, and there- 
fore they could not have been among the material he pre- 
pared for Christ's Church, and I brought forward the frank 
admission of eminent Pedobaptist commentators to this plain 
fact. 

I showed that his claims that Christ's words to His disci- 
ples when they brought little children unto Him that he 
might lay his hands upon them and bless them, were utterly 
without reason, and that this passage has long since been sur- 
rendered by all modern critics and commentators, and that 
the very fact that the disciples rebuked those who brought 
vouns: children to Him was conclusive evidence that hitherto 
they had baptized no children, and that they were unknown 
as members of the church as yet. I was justified in con- 
cluding that during the ministry of Christ, no children were 
taken into the church or baptized, and the law of baptism 



IiJFANT Baptism. 803 

given to tlio apostles positively forbids the baptism of infants, 
since it was limited to believers. 

I have passed over the entire record of the Acts of the 
Apostles, and found that the Holy Spirit, the unerring and 
faithful chronicler of all important events and acts, nowhere 
indicates that infants or unbelievers were ever baptized — but 
in eveiy instance, where the subjects are mejitioned, believers 
are specified — and when households are mentioned, the Holy 
Spirit is careful to tell us that all the members believed and 
rejoiced, or were comforted, or could, or had "addicted them- 
selves to the ministry of the saints." 

I then examined the teachings of all the Epistles, and ascer- 
tained the true symbolism, or design of Christian baptism, 
and found that in every case, it was for a profession of per- 
sonal faith in Christ — a profession of personal union with 
Him — that One had died to sin — had arisen to walk in a new 
life — and thus had put on Christ before the world — acts 
that would be meaningless, were baptism applied to uncon- 
scious babes or unregenerate sinners; and I thus found that 
infant baptism was opposed to the very symbolism of baptism, 
and the perpetual analogy of Christianity. 

I then examined the character of the membership of the 
churches planted by the Apostles, and I found that the 
Apostles addressed each as composed of " saints," " brethren," 
"faithful in Christ" Jesus, that all had been baptized into 
Chrst, and thus had put on Christ,' ^. e.,had made a personal 
profession of discipleship to Christ, and, that they had been 
baptized to obtain the answer of a good conscience toward 
God, and therefore, the apostolic churches must have been 
composed of professed believers only. 

I also notice the fact that, Paul declared to the church at 
Ephesus, that he had declared the whole counsel of God to 
them, and he doubtless did to all other churches, but, in his 
Epistle to this church, or to any other church, he nowhere 
intimates that it is the duty of Christian parents to baptize 
their children, and bring them into the church — he promises 
no blesvsings, holds out no reward for doing it, and threatens 
no penalty for failing to doit; neither does Peter, James, 



8o4 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

John, nor Jude, and therefore we are bound* to conclude that 
infant baptism is not a part of the counsel of God. 

Having followed him from lid to lid of the Bible and shown 
he has not offered the least semblance of authority for Infant 
Baptism, I have presented you with the testimony of the most 
eminent Pedobaptist historians and commentators, embracing 
the very best scholarship Pedobaptists boast of, and these 
men honestly admit and declare that the Word of God affords 
neither precept for, nor example of. Infant Baptism, and many 
tell you frankly that the rite w^as not known in the apostolic 
age, and that it is manifestly a tradition of men. There is not 
a historian of any sect who declares that it was practiced in the 
first century, and this is all that concerns us. Mark this fact : 

His argument that Infant Baptism must be Scriptural, 
because it was mentioned so early as A. D. 150, proves too 
much, for it would prove that trine immersion and baptismal 
regeneration, and a host of other confessedly human traditions 
were scriptural also; but Origen tells us expressly, that Infant 
Baptism was a tradition. 

I next brought forward the fact that the majority of the 
Christian Fathers, the children of Christians, were not bap- 
tized in infancy. I gave the names of a number of them, 
embracing Origen, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Austin, Jerome, 
the Emperor Constantine, and several others. And I affirm 
that my opponent cannot name one Christian Father or man 
in the first four centuries who was baptized in his infancy. 
Must not this fact make its proper impression upon every can- 
did Christian mind ? Dr. Wall regarded it as the most diffi- 
cult fact he had to grapple with, and the strongest historical 
fact Baptists had brought forward in opposition to Infant bap- 
tism, and I have brought it forward here, and asked my oppo- 
nent, as he had paid so little attention to my arguments against 
the practice, to notice this, but has he done so? 

Finally I claim, as I have a right to claim, that my Refuta- 
tion throughout has been most thorough and complete. I 
should consider that I had done but comparatively little to 
have simply exposed the sheer fallacy of Eld. Ditzler's argu- 
ments in support of Infant Baptism, I feel satisfied that I have 



Infant Baptism. 805 

done this — the countenances of this audience, of the many Pe- 
dobaptist ministers before me, whom I know, convince me o 
this, — and more than this. I have explained many passages 
of Scripture, hitherto pressed into the service of Infant Bap- 
tism, and satisfactorily shown that they discredited the prac- 
tice; but in addition to this, I have presented thirty-eight 
arguments, in due logical form, any. one of which is a thor- 
ough refutation of the practice. He has but twice, if my 
memory serves me, referred to them, and then not to answer, 
but to make light of them ! 

The discussion of this proposition must certainly accom- 
plish a great good. It has more clearly brought out the fact 
so frankly confessed by my opponent, that the Old Testament 
covenants, which include the Covenant of Circumcision, give 
!io support to Infant Baptism. 

2.. That there is no more identity between the church of the 
Old Testament and that of the ]^ew,than between a thing that 
has no existence, and never had, and a thing that has. The 
church identity theor}^ is exploded^. 

3. That the only authority that can be raised for Infant 
Baptism is, not scriptural precept or example, but analogy 
and inference, and probability, while the teachings and prac- 
tice of John, ot Christ, and of all his apostles, together with 
the whole symbolism of Christian baptism, is opposed to, 
and in contradiction of, Infant Baptism; and not until the funda- 
mental doctrine of justification by personal faith alone had 
been corrupted, was Infant Baptism brought in. 

IsTow, in conclusion, let me say to my opponent, influenced 
by his closing remarks on the former proposition and repeated 
in other phrase during the discussion of this — Baptists of the 
Southwest can never be conquered nor Methodism defended 
by such weapons and materials of war as you have thus far 
used in this conflict. You may assure your heart of this fact. 
If Pedobaptists present will but take a word of advice from 
me — who am not your enemy, because I have told you the 
truth — you will never sprinkle another babe, and thus for- 
ever deprive it of obeying Christ for itself when it becomes 



8o6 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

a believer, until your religious teachers can show you at least 
one precept, one command for, or example of it, in the Isew 
Testament, and if they cannot do it, you may know it is only 
a commandment — a mere tradition of men — displeasing to 
Christ, for He has said : " In vain do they worship me, who 
teach for doctrine the commandments of men." Every Chris- 
tian on this earth can unite upon the immersion of believers, 
without the sacrifice of a principle, as this Debate has abund- 
antly shown. And if all Christians do not unite with Baptists 
on immersion and a regenerated church membership, the sin 
cannot be laid at the door of my brethren. — \_Time out 



THE 



GREAT CARROLLTON DEBATE. 



THIRD PROPOSITION. 



CHRISTIAN BAPTISM IS PREREQUISITE TO THE LORD S SUPPER 

DR. GRAVES Affirms. 
DR. DITZLER Denies. 



[Dr. Graves' Opening Speech.] 

Mr. President : — I am peculiarly circumstanced this morn- 
ing. I stand here to defend the Discipline, the Satute-Book 
of the M. E. Denomination against one of its own authorized 
ministers and Episcopally endorsed champions ! 

In the discussion of a previous question, you were made 
astonished when I forced him to publicly take issue with 
the Ritual of his Society, but he treated that as a light 
matter — being but the shell and shuck of Christianity, which 
the church could change, .and that the meat and matter of it 
were contained in the Articles of Religion, which were inviol- 
able and unchangeable. But, lo ! and behold, in denying this 
question, he is at direct issue, as he was on infant innocency 
and purity, with the very articles of his faith, which- he has 
solemnly sworn to his overseers, before his God, to defend ! 

1. He is engaged to deny that the Supper is in the Church 
of Christ. Do you not? Now, the articles of his Discipline 
positively say that both Baptism and the Supper are sacra- 
ments in the church, as we shall presently see, and against its 
teachings he will be compelled to "inveigh" to support this 
denial. 



8o8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

He is against the teachings of all the theological writers, 
Wesley, Clark, Watson, Hibbard, etc., endorsed by his church 
as standard, known to me, as he had the boldness to put himself 
against all the standard lexicographers, scholars, historians 
and critics upon the two former questions. He is truly a bold 
man. He is made of the metal that champion controversialists 
need be made of, I mean those who make controversy a busi- 
ness, a profession, as Eld. Ditzler does. 

But I am fortunate in standing here this day, for the first 
time during this debate, to defend the common faith, on this 
point, of every denomination represented, or unrepresented, 
in this house, Disciples, Presbyterians, of all sorts. Episcopa- 
lians, high and low, Methodists, ITorth and South, Baptists — 
and thank God, the teachings of the Sacred Word. It is at 
least gratifying to know that it is possible for us all to agree 
on any one thing, and may the time soon come \vhen we can 
agree on all that Christ has taught as well, and so be one 
body, having but one Divine Head — and I believe the 
prayer of Christ will jet be answered ; all true Christians will 
one dav be one — mere Dartizans, never. 

It is not with the Methodist Church, as she makes herself 
known through her Articles and Books published by the Gen- 
eral Conference, that I am antagonizing, but with an individual 
member. Eld. Ditzler, who, in this, represents not the faith, 
but the permitted loose, and pernicious practice of his Church. 

If ever there was one settled question in Christendom touch- 
ing Church Order, it certainly is this, but this age leaves 
nothing quiet. The whole world is as a vast caldron boil- 
ing and seething with the agitation of questions of all sorts, 
and there is nothing so established that it is not broken up and 
thrown in. My first premise in proof of my proposition is — 

I. The Lord's Supper is a Religious Eite instituted for, 

AND GIVEN TO HiS ChURCH BY ChRIST, TO BE RESTRICTED TO 
THE LIMITS OF ITS DISCIPLINE. 

^ow the rites of an institution belong to the institution be- 
cause they are in it; because so under the control of the 
organized members, that they cannot be administered without 
their consent. There is, therefore, this strict distinction to be 



The Lord's Supper. 809 

observed, between a rite and ordinance. A rite is an institute or 
ceremony of an organized body, committed to it, or instituted 
by it, to be administered only by its authority and under its 
direction, and to whom it judges fit to receive it. 

An ordinance^ more strictly, is any act appointed to be done 
or observed, that may be done by any number and in a social 
manner, but is not a ceremony of the Church, e. g. prayer, sing- 
ing, etc. Christ designated no particular persons, or legally 
qualified ofiicers to perform them as he did the rites of Baptism 
and the Supper. 

Scriptural Proofs. 

That Christ appointed The Supper to be observed in His 
Churches, we learn from the fact that He first instituted it in 
His Church and administered it to the members of His 
Church gathered together in one place. 

I recognize that body of disciples, though only eleven in 
number, gathered in the upper chamber, as the church ot 
Christ. It is not a multitude that makes a church. Christ 
had fore-designated how few would be recognized by Him — 
"two or three are gathered in his name," under his authority, he 
would be present with them as their Head, e.g., our missionaries 
to foreign fields are sent forth, two or more with their fami- 
lies, and on reaching their stations they organize themselves 
into a church, by covenanting to take the INTew Testament as 
their constitution, and Christ as their Head. Two males and 
two females generally compose our first mission churches. 
These disciples were gathered under his authority, to obey his 
laws, and he himself was with them. They were a body "of 
faithful men, to whom the pure word was preached, and by 
whom the ordinances were duly administered, according to 
Christ's appointment in all things." How far soever we may 
fail to administer them, there is not one of us that doubts they 
administed them just as Christ commanded, and how far 
soever our most renowned churches may fail in purity of 
membership, this was w^ithout doubt, the purest body of Chris- 
tians that ever met on this fallen earth. They possessed all 
the characteristics of a true Christian Church. 

1. They were all true believers in Christ. Jesus said to 



8 10 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

them (probably jast before the Supper), "Now ye are clean 
through the word w^hich I have spokeu unto you." They had 
received or welcomed the Word of God into their hearts. 

2. They had been baptized. It is not necessary that we should 
have the history of their baptism in order to prove the fact. 

(a). They were acknowledged by Christ as his disciples and 
brethren. He never, throughout his public ministry^ acknowl- 
edged any as his disciples and brethren who had not acknowl- 
edged him in baptism. (b). Jesus sent His disciples to 
preach and baptize. If they had not been baptized, they 
would have been chargeable with an inconsistency which is 
sharply reprehended by the pen of inspiration, (Eomans 
ii, 21). (c). He asked them if they were able to be baptized 
into the baptism into which he was baptized. This figurative 
allusion implies that thej had already received, like Him, a 
baptism in water, (d). Jesus Himself received baptism, 
and He taught that "a disciple is not above his master;" 
(e). most unquestionably that the disciples of Jesus accepted 
the baptism of John ; otherwise they, like the Scribes and 
Pharisees, rejected the counsel of God against themselves, 
(t). Paul and all who were converted to the Christian faith ac- 
cepted this initiatory rite. 

3. l^hey were church members. Here again it is not neces- 
sary to have a history of the fact in order to prove the fact. I 
will give a definition of a church in the light of the New Testa- 
ment. Is it a company of baptized believers united together 
under the headship of Christ for mutual edification in Him, and 
for the purpose of securing the establishment of the kingdom of 
God on earth? 

You can give no true definition of an evangelical church which 
will not include the twelve whom Jesus chose and "ordained,'' 
or organized. The Head and members were there. Thej 
were controlled by specific authority — government. They 
had specific rites. There was the pillar and ground of the 
truth. Thence sounded out the Word of God into all the 
world. 

4. The twelve received abundant instruction from our Lord 
before the Supper was instituted. Besides the public dis- 



The Lord's Supper. 8ii 

courses to which they listened, Jesus expounded all things to 
His disciples in private. The Christian institution of Teaching 
was set up by Jesus Himself. The twelve were wont to wait 
on his ministry. 

5. The Fellowship, or a common fund for common use, was 
established before the crucifixion of Jesus. Judas had the 
keeping of it, and took therefrom, by stealth, what was put 
therein, but its use is clearly explained. Therefrom was 
bought what was needed in common, and distributions were 
wont to be made to the poor. Hence we see that those 
who received the Supper at first from the Lord, and those to 
whom they delivered it, were (1), Believers ; (2), who had been 
baptized; and (3), banded organically together into o. church ; 
and (4), who attended on systematic teaching; and (5), main- 
tained a common felloivship; (6) administered the appointed 
ordinances. 

The Articles of Religion of the Methodist Episcopal Society 
acknowledge this little body to be a church of Christ — not a 
hypocrite nor an unregenerate person in it. 

2. Christ had previously recognized the company of bap- 
tized disciples, who received Him as their Lord and Master, as 
His church. Matt, xviii. When he gave the law for dis- 
ciplining an ofiending brother, He had declared that they were 
the body He was establishing as his church, against which the 
gates of hell should never prevail. He here gives them a 
name that they must have understood, and one by which they 
ever after designated themselves. W^e are not wont to name 
a thing before it exists ! 

3. The Holy Spirit, by the mouth of David and Paul, 
declares this body a church, Heb. ii. 12 : " Saying, I will de- 
clare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church 
will I sing praise unto thee." If He ever before sang witb 
them, it is not recorded, but it is, at the close of the supper, 
for " they sang a hymn and went out. 

4. Christ then by the mouth of David called this company 
a church. 

2. The Lord Jesus commanded it to be observed in Hi» 
church when He commissioned His apostles, by placing it after 
baptism. 



8i2 The Great Carrollton Debate. " 

3. The apostles understood this and so instructed the churches, 
as we learn from their invariable practice. I quote from Dr. 

Hibbard, a standard Methodist Text Book : 

"It will be more satisfactory to inquire, How the apostles understood the 
commission with respect to the relative order- of the Christian institute. 
The argument from apostolic precedent is undeniably important. They were 
commissioned to teach the converted nations 'to observe all things whatso- 
ever' Christ had commanded. This was the extent, and this the hmit of 
their authority . . . What, then, did the apostles teach and prac- 
tice with respect to the time and relative order of baptism ? On the day of 
Pentecost, when the people inquired of the apostles : 'Men and brethren, 
what shall we do ? Peter answered. Repent and he baptized evc-y one of you 
in the name of Jesus Christy ' etc. (Acts ii. 38.) Luke sums up the glorious 
results of that memorable day thus : 'Then they that gladly received His 
word were baptized ; and the same day there were added unto them about 
three thousand souls. And they continued steadfastly in the apostles' 
doctrine and fellowship, 2inA in breaking of breaJ^ and in prayers.' (Acts 
vii. 41, 42.) This was the first occasion in which the Apostles had been 
called upon to exercise their high commission. And here, indeed, we are 
called upon to notice particularly the order in which they enforced the 
divine precepts. Upon their anxious hearers they enjoined, first, repent- 
ance, then baptism ; then the duty of church membership ; and then 'break- 
ing of bread,' or the Lord's Supper. Comparing the order here observed 
with the order of the words of the commission, we are struck with admira- 
tion at the prompt fidelity of the Apostles." {Hibbard on Baptism, part 2, 
pp. 176-179.) 

And after quoting Acts viii : 12 ; ix : 18 ; x : 47, 48 ; xiii : 36-38 ; xvi : 14, 
15-33 ; and xviii : 8, on pages 179 and 180, "to illustrate the uniform prac- 
tice of the Apostles," Dr. Hibbard adds: "The above quotations need 
no comment to make them plainer in their teaching respecting the rela- 
tive order of baptism. They bear unequivocal testimony to the point that 
baptism was commanded and observed as the first act of religious duty 
after conversion. This was apostolic practice. * * It will not be 
doubted that what the Apostles enjoined upon their converts, is equally 
binding upon the disciples of JesUs in all ages. * * Is not baptism 
binding upon us as the next duty after conversion, as much as it Was upon 
Cornelius or the converts on the day of Pentecost?" Htib. as above. 

That the Lord's Supper is a church ordinance or rite, all 
denominations known to me teach. 

The Methodist Discipline, Art. xiii., declares : 

The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in 
which the pure word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly admin- 
istered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of neces- 
sity are requisite to the same. 

Baptism and the Lord's Supper which Methodists call sacra- 
ments are in the church, according to this Article. 



The Lord's Supper. 813 

Dr. Hibbard of the Genessee Conference in bis work on 
Baptism, published by Conference, and one of the text books 
young ministers are required to study — says : 

' ' The eucharist, from its very nature, is a church ordinance^ and as such, 
can be properly participated in by church members only. As a church ordi- 
nance, it never can be carried out of the church. This is so evident that no 
words can make it more plain, or add to it force." [Hibbard on Baptism^ 
part 2. p. 185.) 

The Presbyterian church so teaches. 

II. " The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the 
gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law), consists of all 
those throughout the world, that profess the true religion, together with 
their children ; and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house 
and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salva- 
vation." 

Under chapter XXIX we read : " The Lord's Supper to be observed in 
his church unto the end of the world, and to be a bond and pledge of their 
communion with him and with each other, as members of his mystical 
body." 

I now lay down my second premise : 
IL 1^0 ONE IS Entitled to Membership and its Privileges 
IN A Church of Christ, unless Baptized. 

This being true, and all denominations agree again in this, 
it follows irresistably that Baptism is the only rite by which be- 
lievers are initiated into a Church. 

The Discipline for 1850 says : page 24, section 2nd : 

" None should be received until they are recommended by a leader with 
whom they have met at least six months on trial and been baptized.^^ 

Have you changed this law in both respects ? For the last 
edition ot that law of Methodism says: 

'' The minister shall cause the candidates to be placed conveniently be- 
fore the congregation, and after baptizing any who may not have been 
previously baptized, he shall say," etc. 

I said that I was defending the Discipline against Eld. 
Ditzler. What will he say to this ? Will he go back on this 
law? Will he inveigh against his own Discipline? Mark 
what he will say to this ? 

I offer a few direct Scripture proofs : 

John iii. 5: "Jesus answered. Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except 
a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the king- 
dom of God." 

His visible Kingdom must have been in existence— from the 

days of John for none could enter it without baptism. 



8 14 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Acts ii. 41: " Then they that gladly received his word were baptized : and 
the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls." 
Baptism is the act by which they were added. 
I Cor. xii. 13 : "For in one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, 
whether we he Jews or Gentiles, whether we he bond or free ; and have been 
all made to drink into one Spirit." 

The following distinguished Pedobaptist writers confirm 
my proposition that it was water baptism referred to here, 
which united those baptized to the church of Christ. 

De. John Scott. — "We are said to be baptized into the body or church 
of Christ, I Cor. xii. 18, because baptism, which is our admission into the 
Christian covenant, is only in other words our admission into the Chris- 
tian church, which is nothing but the body of Christian people joined and 
confederated by the New Covenant." — Chris. Life^ p. ii, ch. vii, § 9. 

Bp. Burnet teaches that one end and purpose of baptism, according to 
the teaching of St.Paul " is, that we are all baptized into one hody^ we are made 
members one of another ; we are admitted to the society of Christians, and 
to all the rites and privileges of that body, which is the church." — Is not 
the church of Christ the household of faith, at least professedly? I admit 
that "we cannot see into the sincerity of men's hearts: outward profes- 
sions and regular actions are all that fall under men's observation and 
judgment." — On the xxxlx Art., pp. 407, 408. 

Dr. Watts. — " When a person is baptized, he is said to be received into 
the Christian church, for hereby he becomes a member of the catholl6 church 
visible on earth." — {On Chris. Commu., in Works,Yo\. ill, p. 236). — In the same 
page Dr. W. has taught that Christ, our " common Lord and Sovereign, 
has appointed the general rule of admitting membei'S into His churches, 
viz : that *aU such shall be admitted who make a credible profession of 
Christianity.' " 

J. Trapp. — ^^ Are we all baptized? The apostles received all into the 
church that beheved and were baptized, without particular probation for 
some days, weeks, months or years." — Co^n. on I Cor. xii, 13. 

H. Linton. — " By the operation of one and the same Spirit have we all 
been incorporated into one body at our baptism. — Para, on I Cor. xii, 13. 

Dr. John Dick (Presbyterian), speaking of "The two sacraments of 
the Christian Church," remarks : "I begin with baptism, by which we are 
initiated into thefellovjship of the Churchy and which, in the order of dispen- 
sation, precedes the Lord's Supper," etc. — [Dick's Theology, Lect. 88.) 

Dr. Griffin (Presbyterian), in his able Letter Against Close Communion,''' 
observes : " I agree with the advocates for close communion in two ^joints : 
1. That baptism is the initiating ordinance luhich introduces us into tkf. visible 
church. Of course, where there is no baptism there are no visible churches ; 2. 
That we ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of 
coiu'se, are not church members, even if we regard them as Christians." 
(See Fuller on Com., p. 270.) 

" I admit,'^ says Dr. N. L. Rice, " That we cannot get into the visible Church 



Ths Lord's Supper. 815 

wiihoiii hapihm ; but I wiU not agree tliat we can not be pardoned before 
baptism." (8ee Campbell and Rice Debate, p 488.) 

Dr. Hibbard. — "Baptism, from its very nature, stands at the opening 
of the visible career. It is a badge of the Christian profession — the seal of 
the Gospel covenant,* the ordinance of admission into the visible Church of 
Christ. Previously to baptism, the individual has no rights in the visible 
Church. * * * * No society of Christians would receive an unbaptized 
person into their community, and tender to him the privileges of their 
body. So far as proper church rights and privileges are concerned, he is 
regarded in the same light as any unconverted man. The converts on the 
day of Pentecost were first baptized and thus added to the church. The con- 
current voice of the Christian world excludes an unbaptized person from fellowship 
in the visible Church of God. (Hibbard on Baptism, part 2, pp. 184, 185.) 

My conclusion is, therefore, no one can Scripturally receive 
The Lord's Supper unless he has received Christian Baptism, 
since The Supper is one of the privileges of the Church into 
which no one can enter without baptism. 

I will present my first argument in the form of a simple log- 
ical syllogism, viz . 

1. The Lord's Supper is a rite in the Church of Christ, and 
can only be enjoyed by the members of it. 

Can one outside of, not a member of a Masonic Lodge, 
receive a degree of Masonry — must it not be conferred by the 
Lodge, and in an organized Lodge ? 

2. No one can enter the church, or become a member with- 
out Christian baptism. 

3. Urgo, Christian baptism is a prerequisite to the Lord's 
Supper— Q. E. D. 

A second argument is not needed to establish the propo- 
sition, but I ofter this: 

IIL Baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper, because 
THE Divine Lawgiver placed it in this order, and His apos- 
tles INVARIABLY OBSERVED IT IN THIS ORDER, WHICH IS EQUAL 

TO Fundamental Law. 

L Baptism preceded the institution of the Supper over three 
years and six months nearly. 

2. The Savior invited only those who had been baptized 
to partake of it. 

3. In his commission he placed baptism first, and com- 

*]SroTE.— I would not be understood as endorsing this statement, it is 
the very essence of Ritualism. 



8i6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

mancled it to be observed in this order — can it be denied that the 
order of the commission is Law f Mj opponent must and will do 
so. I ask in turn. Is there, respecting the order of the or- 
dinances, any law ? Has Christ given a law for the constitu- 
tion of His church and the administration of its services, or 
left it to float upon every shifting tide of opinion ? If a 
preacher should first organize a church, then baptize its mem- 
bers, and then proceed to disciple them, is his course as law- 
ful, or no more unlaioful , than one directly the reverse? If 
unlawful, I ask Why? How can it be unlawful and not 
contrary to the law? If Christ has given a law, what is the 
law ? Is it not contained in the commission ? If not, Where ? 
If in the commission, dops it not establish the necessary pri- 
ority of baptism to church membership ? If not, I ask does 
it establish the priority of faith to baptism ? and, if it does, 
How? In anv other manner than the order in which these du- 
ties are prescribed ? If not, the order of the commission is a 
part of its Imo, and this law establishes the priorit}- of baptism 
to church (nembership, not less than of faith to baptism. 
It must be granted, because true, that the order in which 
positive laws are given is as important and as inviolable as the 
law itself It may not be violated with impunity. It is open- 
ly and palpably violating the law itself and confounds and 
nullifies its intent. The Divine Lawgiver had a wise design 
in the arrangement of that order of His laws. To invert 
them is to pervert and subvert them. He did not say go and 
baptize the sinner, then teach and then disciple, but, per 
contra. He also commanded his Apostles to baptize into the 
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. 
He had weighty reasons which the thoughtful mind can 
see for this order. He wished to teach the great fact that 
officially in contracting and carrying into efiect the Cove- 
nant of Redemption, the Father is superior to the Sou, 
and the Son to the Holy Spirit. Would not my opponent 
or any other minister violate this command and justly ofifend 
Christ and receive his condemnation who would presume to 
invert the order and baptize into the name of the Holy Spirit, 
and of the Son, and of the Father? Let this congregation 
answer this ? 



The Lord's Supper. 817 

To teach the baptized (lisciples to observe the Lord s Sup- 
per is undeniably one of the ''all things" which Christ had 
commanded his Apostles to teach. The grand design of this 
sacred Supper was that the disciples might be able to discern 
his body in its celebration, l^ow to invert the order by which 
this end is secured is to pervert the Supper and sin a daring 
sin against Christ, and bring condemnation upon those who 
observe it! Is this a small matter ? Let ministers think of 
this, lest they bring the condemnation upon their own souls. 

Elder Ditzler would have it read : " Go give the Supper to 
all sinners and idolaters, etc., then teach and disciple them if 
you can, and then baptize them if they will permit you." tie 
might as well baptize in the name of his father Wesley, R. 
Watson and Adam Clarke. 

4. The apostles understood the inviolability of this order, 
and they invariably observed it. Read Acts ii, 41-43, and 
refer to the reasoning of Dr. Hibbard, which I have just read. 

There is not an instance in the Sacred Record of the Sup- 
per being given to an unbaptized person, or where it was ob- 
served save by a church that came together- to observe it. The 
claim that a minister has the right to administer it to whom he 
pleases and where he pleases, is a most presumptuous one. 
rt is one of the vile beasts that came out of Rome, and *«^ould 
have been left in her to be burned up with her. The ordi- 
nances belong to the church and not to the ministry. It is an 
iniquitous assumption of power for ministers to dare to admin- 
ister her ordinances and privileges to others than her members 
— to foreigners. It is taking the children's bread and giving 
it to dogs. The Law of the Discipline, which has already been 
cited, clearly recognizes the priority of baptism and commands 
it as a condition to church membership and church privileges. 

My next argument is : 

IV. Baptism is essentially prerequisite to the proper ob- 
servance OF THE Lord's Supper, in order to preserve the 

GRAND underlying IDEA WHICH IT SYMBOLIZES, l. 6., THAT 
SPIRITUAL BIRTH MUST PRECEDE SPIRITUAL FOOD. 

Our Divine Redeemer and Head, left not with His church mere 
51 



8i8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

empty forms and unmeaning ceremonials. He intended them 
for the instruction of His ignorant children. He therefore 
gave them forms that symbolize the deepest, grandest, and 
most fundamental truths and doctrines of His Kingdom. 

As scriptural immersion is pregnant with great truths, on 
which rests our hope of salvation, so is the supper. But 
the one I wish to develop here is the underlying truth that 
there must be spiritual life before spiritual sustentation can 
be offered — birth before food. 

A child must be born into the world before you can give it 
food to sustain its independent life into which by its birth it 
has come. The order here is a necessity. It cannot be re- 
versed. It (the child) dies as to its previous mode of life by 



its severance in birth from its previous means of sustenance, 
and comes into a separate existence, and then it demands a 
separate means of perpetuating the life or state into which it 
has been born. The chick must burst and leave its shell 
before you can feed it. The kernel of grain must germinate 
and send forth its roots into the earth before its life-principle 
can receive sustenance therefrom. So a sinner must be born 
of the Spirit of God, must come into a new life and relation 
to God, before he can receive spiritual nourishment suited to 
his new relation and life. You cannot feed a spiritually dead 
soul with spiritual food. It must first be born to such a life 
of the Spirit, and then, and not till then, ia it in a state to re- 
ceive spiritual nourishment. Here is a great law whose order 
is, in the very nature of the case, irreversible. 

]^ow this law appears in the symbolical language of the or- 
dinances. The first, baptism, symbolizes the death of the 
sinner to sin, and his resurrection to newness of life through 
faith in the death and resurrection of Christ. The other, the 
Supper, symbolizes the fact that this spiritual life into which it 
has been born, derives its daily sustenance by partaking in faith 
of the merits of Christ's suffering and death. In the first, we 
say in symbol that we have died to sin, and risen to a new 
life in and through Christ. In the second, we say in symbol 
that this new life is to be fed only through the maintenance 
of a vital union by faith with Christ, drawing all its spiritual 
succor and growth from Him. 



The Lord's Supper, 819 

The firyt declares to the world that we have eoine \nU) new 
spiritual existence. The second declares to the world, the 
manner in which this new life is sustained. So the order of 
the symbols is as marked and distinct and irreversible as the 
facts which they symbolize. They perfectly fit the underlying 
law. N"ow5 as a child must be born before it can be fed, and 
as the sinner must be born of the Spirit before he can partake 
of spiritual food; so he must be born of water to symbolize 
his spiritual birth before he can partake of Christ's broken 
body and shed blood to symbolize the means by which that 
life into which it has been born, is sustained. How unnat- 
ural and incongruous to reverse this order, and symbolize the 
means of supporting a life, before you symbolize the be- 
ginning of that life ! The underlying order of the law, first a 
new state of life, and then the means of perpetuating it, should 
regulate the order in which we symbolize the two facts. 

This receives farther confirmation by the fact that a spiritual 
birth is a change of our moral relations to God, from enmity 
to love and oneness, which constitutes a new state, one act of 
baptism symbolizes this change, and its repetition is uncalled 
for, and indeed cannot with any propriet}^ be repeated ; while 
on the other hand as the sustenance of that life is a constant 
necessity, so its symbol is appointed to be observed till 
Christ's second coming in and by the church with suitable 
frequency, as a reminder of our drawing constantly our spir- 
itual nourishment from Him, As a fact, spiritual succor must 
follow spiritual birth, so its symbol should follow the symbol 
of that birth. How then can I act the unnatural part of at- 
tempting to reverse or interchange at pleasure, the order of 
the symbols? How can I admit its allowability? 

I now offer mv fifth aro^ument. 

y. The professed oneness op the Churches of Christ — ^. 

6., BODY OP Christ is one into which all are baptized in one 

Spirit. 

That the one loaf '^ heis artos,^' see I Cor. 10, which we should 
use, not artoi loaves — indicates that the church partaking, is one 
body, one undivided body, unrent into parties, divisions, and fac- 
tions, by diverse faiths and practices, rites and ceremonies, and 



820 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

constitution and governments, and religion, and that the Church 
of Christ (one church, here used for all hy that figure called 
Synecdoche^ when one is put for many, a part for the whole) 
is one body, not many different, hostile, antagonizing bodies, 
as Methodists, Presbyterians, Catholics, and the Disciples, 
holding one faith, and that faith which was " once for all deliv- 
ered to the Saints," and one immersion in and bv which that one 
faith in one Lord is professed to the world. Then notice the 
force of the Greek word the Spirit selected, artos^ and it 
means one kind of bread, and that wheaten bread in distinction 
from barley bread, madza. That one loaf must not be a com- 
pound of flour made from different kinds of grain, but of one 
and the same, wheaten flour alone. Read the whole of the first 
chapter. The church at Corinth was divided, not with respect 
to doctrine, but into parties^ one for Paul, one for Apollos, one 
for Peter, and one for Christ. While in this divided and dis- 
tracted state it could not celebrate the Lord's Supper, because 
they would thereby teach that Christ was divided — His body 
divided — His house divided, and His kingdoni divided against 
itself. Christ never did set up a house or a kingdom divided 
against itself — a kingdom divided into a dozen provinces, under 
radically different constitutions and governments, waging ex- 
terminating warfare against each other, as Catholics, Protest- 
ants, and Baptists are, have ever and must ever be, so long as 
they hold different doctrines and have different church govern- 
ments — I say exterminating antagonism, for all can see as 
Methodism prevails in Carrollton, or any given town or 
county in this nation, and absorbs the population, Presbyte- 
rian and Baptist churches are blotted out — exterminated. 

But I have previously said that the literal visible kingdom 
of Israel was a type of Christ's spiritual, visible kingdom. 
The former was composed of twelve tribes, distinct and inde- 
pendent of each other, locally, like the States of these United 
States, but all united by one constitution into one kingdom, 
having the same head or king over all, with one religious faith, 
and one form of worship. You see that either tribe might 
multiply in numbers, prosperity and power to any extent, 
and it would not effect in the least the increase of any other 



The Lord's Supper. 821 

tribe. Israel was emphatically E Pluribus TJnum — one people 
from many, one nation from many nations or tribes. 

Kovv the Kingdom of Christ is the exact antitype of that 
type. Many independent local churches — as the churches of 
Oalatia, churches of Asia, and in twenty-one instances in the 
]N"ew Testament, — not the church of Asia or Samaria, Korth anjd 
South, one body embracing a whole State or Kingdom, — I say 
many local churches, each separate and independent of each 
other, but all united under one Head and divine King, into 
one Kingdom, having the same faith, the same baptism, admin- 
istering to the same subjects and for the selfsame purpose. 
l^ow each one of these individual churches may increase so as 
to embrace ail persons in the recognized field and not in the 
least conflict with, or exterminate another church, for it would 
not absorb into itself the membership of another sister church, 
iio more than one. tribe of Israel would absorb another. But 
should the M. E. Soviet}' prevail universally in this town it 
would absorb and break down every other denomination in it. 
This must be clear to all, and therefore if any one of these 
denominations is a true scriptural church, no other and diifer- 
'ent one can be. 

I^ow to return to the Supper. If the Baptist church in this 
placp could not scripturally take the Supper, if divided into 
warring factions about the minister they would choose for 
a pastor, and much less if divided as to fundamental doctrines, 
and t'he administration of the ordinances, how by Christ's 
authority, can Methodists, Presbyterians, Disciples, Catholics 
and Mormons partake of it together? Are they one kodyf 
Do they hold and teach one faith f Do they administer one 
baptism to the same subjects, by the same a€t and for the same 
purpose f Have they the same head over them, or law-making 
power? Is there no difference between a Methodist General 
'C^onference, a Presbyterian General Assembly, Brigham Young 
and Pio Nono, the Infallible? These bodies cannot, if indeed 
so absurd an idea could be granted as that each was a true 
scriptural church, commune together, while so divided. How 
much less can Baptist churches join them in celebrating this 
Supper? It would be a manifest perversion of the design of 



822 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the ordinanoe, and we must be excused for not taking part in 
such an act. We might as well sprinkle infants for the ob- 
servance of Christian immersion. 

From this doctrine of oneness developed bj Paul, as symbol- 
ized by the Lord^s Supper, the church in any one place, 
con-associated by one baptism, gathered with one accord, and in 
one mind into one room, eating of one loaf, composed of the 
flour of one kind of grain, in one faith, in one and the same sj)irit, 
and thus professing themselves one and the same body ; all 
can see that an unbaptized person, though truly regenerate, 
could not participate in such a Supper, having such a design 
without perverting and falsifying its teachings, for each mem- 
ber participating unites in the showing forth this design, ^. e. 
that the body or church is one, and that he is a member of it — 
organically incoiyoi^ated with it. I^ow there is but one way to 
become incoporated with a church of Christ, and that is by 
Christian Baptism, as I have proved, "For in one Spirit are 
we all baptized into one bod}- * * and have all been made 
to drink into one Spirit.^' * * "For as the body is one and 
hath many n^tembers, and all the members of that one body, 
being many areolae body.^^ "Except a man be born of water 
* * he cannot enter the kingdom, of God,'' John 3, 5, which 
is the visible Church of Christ." As the members of our 
body can only be nourished and strengthened by a union with 
the body, so a person can only " discern '^ and show forth 
the Lord's body, and receive the blessings Christ bestowe 
upon those who truly obey, by remembering Him in it. 
How could my arm, dissevered from my body, be strengthened, 
or in any way benefitted by my body, except in organic union 
with it? By no act could it truly show forth a real vital union 
with my body so long as an organic union is lacking.. Nc^ 
more can an unbaptized Christian symbolize the oneness- 
of Christ's body, i. e., his church, and his union and fellow-^ 
ship with it. 

Therefore an unbaptized Christian cannot scvipturally partake of 
the Lprd's Supper^ 



The Lord's Supper. 823 



DR. DITZLER'S FIRST REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — Doctor Graves starts out by 
saying he is here to defend our Discipline, and thinks I will be 
forced to stand alone, and must deny that the supper is in the 
church. He is here to '^defend all the denominations in all 
the broad land." He is not here to debate with our church, 
but with myself on this point So he tells us. Our propo- 
sition reads, " Methodists deny ;" not I merely. He says 
they send out missionaries two by two, with their wives and 
families, and the first thing they do is to organize a church. 
But if, as he asserts, they can only get into the church by 
water baptism, and that means a local congregation always, 
how can they form the church? By your proposition, they 
were not churoh members while separated— held membership 
nowhere. We would say they held it by virtue of being in 
Christ's church, and their letters testified to their affiliation 
with these congregations. 

But all Dr. Graves has to say about the wicked, etc., 
etc., has nothing to do here. Has a regenerate, a saved soul, 
the right to the Lord's table, and that at once, as soon as he 
has trust in Christ ; or has he to wait till he can be baptized ? 
Where is the ground, the law requiring such a relation of 
these services ? Where is the truth justitying such a position ? 
It is not, as Dr. Graves argues, giving sustenance to dead, 
wicked men, but to regenerate, spiritually animated people of 
God — " sons." 

Before we begin our ofilsetting arguments, let us read from 
leading Baptist authorities; and, first, let us now read an edi- 
torial by Dr. J. R. Graves, in his paper, " The Baptist," 
Memphis, Tennessee, July 4th, 1868: 

^' No Pedobaptist or Campbellite is authorized to preach the gospel, and 
we would much prefer to see a Baptist sprinkle a child, than to invite an 
unbaptized teacher of acknowledged errors — even the fundamental prin- 
ciples of Eomanism— into his pulpit, and thus set him before the world as 
at^eacher of true doctrines— an eyaugelical and scripturally qualified 



824 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

minister of Jesus Christ. Ttie sprinkling act would be less harmful in its 
influence. It must be conceded by every unbiased mind that the Scrip- 
tures, both by precept and example, warrant no one to preach — ^to call 
upon others to repent and be baptized — before he himself has repented and 
been baptized. 

Pedobaptist and Campbellite ministers have never submitted to the 
baptism Christ commanded. If immersed, there are two things fatal to 
the vaUdity of the act as Christian baptism. 

1. The society that baptized was not an evangelical church, and 
no organization but a true church of Christ visible, has any authority to 
administer Christian immersion. A Temperance Society, though com- 
posed of ministers or angels, nor a Mormon "church," can administer 
Christian baptism. These are human societies, and so are Pedobaptist and 
Campbellite " churches" human societies, devised and set on foot, in op- 
position to the churches of Christ, by ambitious or misguided men. 

2. The design of the baptism administered to them was not scriptural, 
and therefore the act was null, and worse than a nullity — a gross and 
dangerous misrepresentation, e. g. : The Cambellite was immersed to se- 
cure the remission of his sins, and the regeneration of his heart, and if he 
is a genuine Campbellite, he has no other change of heart than that he re- 
ceived in the water — and he is, consequently, as certainly unbafttzed 
as he is unregenerate and unpardoned. Can Baptists endorse such bap- 
tisms as scriptural ? They virtually do it when they invite such to preach 
as ministers,if there is any logic in acts, because they never invite one of 
their own faith to preach before he has been baptized. When a seat and 
the right to speak and to vote in the United States Senate is accorded to a 
man, his claims to be a legitimate Senator of the Congress of the Unfted 
States is conceded and endorsed. 

But even if these ministers had been duly baptized by a regular Baptist 
Church, holding to the errors they do, they should promptly be excluded^ 
and thereby denied both the pulpit and fellowship of the church, and, 
of course, denied the administration of, or participation in, the ordinances 
of the church." 

Hear, now, The Texas Baptist Pulpit, a sermon delivered 
by Elder J. B. Link, pages 18 and 19, 1873 : 

" The properly appointed officers of a government alone can adminis- 
ter its laws." " Neither scripture nor reason authorizes us to recognize 
any man at this day, as an oflQcial minister of the gospel, but one ap- 
pomted to that office by a church of Jesus Christ, nor any pretended ad- 
ministrations of the ordinance of baptism as valid baptism, except those 
performed by a properly authorized administrator;" p. 19. See also 
pages 258 and 260, same position, closing with these words as apphed to 
ministers of all other churches: "They are all usurpers and rebek 
against the government of Christ's Church. Truth requires us to view 
and treat them as such." p. 265. 

ITow let us examine the points at issue. By the Baptist po 



The Lord's Supper. 825 

sition of Dr. Graves and all tlie Southwest — no one can take 
the Lord's supper scripturally, legally, rightfully, unless the 
following facts hold good, viz: 

1. He must be immersed. 

2. Immersed by a properly constituted minister. 

3. For a proper purpose. See also on this, Howell, 195, as 
well as Br. Graves, as just quoted. 

4. He must be regenerate before baptized, else he was not 
Scripturally- baptized at all — it is nothing. 

5. It must be with the proper symbolism, baptized to repre- 
sent the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ; else 
he is not baptized. 

So Dr. Graves asserts — Baptists maintain. 

1st — Then, notice — he must be immersed, dipped. The 
man is not allowed the right of decision here for himself — the 
minister decides for him, or his fellows in the congregation. 
They do not go by the rules — " by their fruits ye shall know 
them," and so long as they walk humbly with God, and 
breathe a spirit of piety, let them decide their mode of bap- 
tism for themselves. l!^o, but on a question where lexicons, 
philology, versions, fathers, comnientators are called in by 
hundreds, to decide the mode, — on such an issue of judgment, 
the right to approach the Lord's table is suspended. 

2d — But if dipped, still it is not baptism, unless a regener- 
ate believer at the time he was dipped. If he was not regen- 
erate then, was dipped, and afterwards through faith is re- 
generated, still he eats and drinks damnation to himself, from 
the Baptist standpoint, for he is not baptized, though dipped. 

3d — If dipped, and regenerate, still if not baptized with the 
proper symbolism, it fails again. They — Baptists — tell us 
baptism is a door, initiatory rite, represents death to sin, is a 
profession of faith in Christ, symbolizes the death, burial, and 
resurrection of Jesus Christ, etc. 'Now, from Dr. Graves' po- 
sition, if you were not dipped to represent the true import of 
baptism, you are not scripturally baptized — it is not valid. 

4th — If all these points hold good, you are not baptized if 
it is not for a proper object. If, as the Disciples, for the re- 
mission of sins, or as Pedobaptists, to represent regeneration 
by which our innocence is secured, it is not valid. 



826 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

4th. If all these poiiitshold good, yet if dipped by one not duly 
aathorized, it is invalid — no baptism. Here is a doubly im- 
portant point. Here the point becomes fearfully delicate and 
dangerouso If the administrator failed at his baptism in any 
one of these five points, he is no true, legitimate minister — has 
no right to baptize. And if the one by whom he was baptized 
failed in any one of these five points, he had no authority — 
it is not valid. You see, therefore, that Dr. Graves' position 
implies three things — that (1st). Every Baptist minister is om- 
niscient — knows all hearts, that the party is regenerate, has 
the right intention, symbolism, etc. (2d). That he is ubi- 
quitious — has been present all the way down for 1800 years 
to know that all the links of the chain by which they claim to 
run back to the apostles, hold good— all these five conditions 
hold good in every case in the chain. (3d). That they are in- 
fallible in judgment and decision, so that when they make 
the conditions and set the limits, it is infallibly certain and true. 

[N'ow this makes a fearful summing up. Hence if all these 
hold not good, and who will say the millionth part of them 
would hold good ? — but if they all do not hold good, there is 
not a Baptist in this house that has the right to commune. 
IS'ay more, there is not a Baptist in Carrollton — -not in Mis- 
souri. Hence every time you Baptists commune, you rebel 
against Christ, and eat and drink condemnation to your souls! 
Alas, what a terrible gauntlet you have to run here. 

By Dr. Graves' rules, Dr. Ford, Waller, Orchard, and all 
the authorities here — these editors, unless the baptizer is in 
the regular line of so-called Apostolic Succession — has his bap- 
tism in regular order handed down lineally, by regular suc- 
cession, from John the Harbinger, he is not baptized, and can- 
!iot administer the ordinance validly. But what a wild specu- 
lation is this ! 

To the credit of all the early Baptists in England, Wales 
and America, this wild and unsubstantial shadow was never 
dreamed of. Backus, Benedict, Roger Williams, Clark, 
Knollys, Holmes and Olney, all paid no attention to it ; did 
not believe it. They knew it was wholly untrue and unscrip- 
turaL But as our Baptist friends, led on by Dr, Graves, make 



The Lord's Supper. 827 

it absolutely essential, and all conscience hangs here, let us 
examine it. 

1. Let us look at succession in England : Macaulaj says 
there was not a Baptist congregation or church in England in 
the sixteenth century. Wall shows that not till the seven- 
teenth century was there a Baptist church in England. There 
was an Anabaptist congregaton in London in the sixteenth 
century, but they held such wild notions that the Baptists of 
the next century would not receive their rites from, or unite 
with, them. But Benedict, the Baptist historian of greatest 
repute, not only gives proof of all this, as well as Backus, but 
says of Mr. Smyth, who for nine years was an Episcopal min- 
ister, that he and others went to Holland — Robinson the ''father 
of Independents" being one of the company (328) where they 
cast him out of the church. * * * These good men, though 
they had been driven from their native country by persecu- 
tion entertained very contracted notions of religious liberty. 
They persecuted Mr. Smyth with the most virulent rancor. 
The laws of the country in which they had found an asylum, 
did, indeed, restrain their resentment to words ; but they load- 
ed him and his opinions with every kind of reproach, and en- 
deavored to render both his person and doctrine the objects 
of general abhorrence, [So they do now; so the Baptists 
loaded the open communion Baptist Bunyan with the epithets, 
'devil,' 'anti-christ,' 'liar,' and now Roger Williams is de- 
nounced and repudiated by Dr. Graves! They charged him 
with many enthusiastic opinions, which they had not been 
able to prove that he held. They reviled him as a man of a 
wolfish nature, whom God had struck with blindness; a brute, 
beast, etc. But these ravings * * reflected more disgrace 
on themselves than on their adversary," 3*28-'29. Those con- 
verted to his views, " he formed into a distinct church, chiefly, 
if not wholly, composed of exiles from his own country. 
This appears to have been the first Baptist church composed 
of Englishmen, after the Reformation. It was formed about 
1607 or 1608." Crosby put the first 1633 ; page 329. N'ow let 
us see how^ many were baptized — where the succession. Bend- 
diet quotes the facts from Baptist authorities, giving Crosby ^ 



828 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Ivimy's Hist. Eng. Bap., p. 562; Johnson's Chris. Plea, 1617, 

p. 23, Pagit, etc., as supporting him, no one denying. 

"It seems Mr. Smyth and his friends were put to some difficulty in re- 
viving the practice of immersion. He and all his disciples had been 
sprinkled in their infancy ; and therefore, according to then* view, were 
unbaptized. There were, indeed, many churches in Holland, who prac- 
ticed immersion; but as they differed widely in sentiments from him, he 
did not choose to receive baptism from them. This completely refutes 
Dr. Mosheim's supposition, that the English Baptists derived their origin 
from the German and Dutch Mennonites ; and that, in former times, 
they adopted their doctrine in aU its points. On the contrary, we see 
that the first Enghsh Baptists of which we have any regular account after 
the Reformation, although living in the midst of the Dutch Mennonites, 
declined receiving baptism from them on account of their ditlerence of 
opinions in many important points. * * -•• This obliged Mr. Smyth 
to consider of some other means of reviving the ordinance. What meth- 
od he took, is not very clearly stated. It is most probable, that those who ' 
were convinced of behevers' baptism first formed themselves into a chm"ch 
[here you see Dr. G.'s idea crushed. These fjeople were all baptized by 
sprinkling in infancy. Yet first form themselves into a church before 
being immersed. So they believed, acted — so Benedict believed, and all 
Baptists then — Dr. G. and his friends go back — recede] and then appointed 
two of their number (perhaps Mr. Smyth and Mr. Helwisse) to baptize 
each other, and afterwards baj)tize the rest; Crosby, vol.1, p. 85, etc.; 
Benedict, 330. This subject caused considerable uneasiness and reproach 
to the first Baptists after the Reformation, both General and Particulai. 
A similar difficulty occurred at the formation of the original Baptist 
church in America, by Mr. Roger Williams, who had recourse to the same 
expedient, (Ivimy's Hist, of Eng. Baptists, p. 562 ; Benedict, 330), and 
we shall find in the sequel of this history, that the good men in Leicester- 
shh'e, in the middle of the last century, when placed in similar chcum- 
stauces, adopted the same method." 

Here we see, 1. In Germany the Anabaptists " restored 
baptism" by coming out of the Roman church, and immersing 
each other, when they had been only sprinkled! They state 
it themselves. 2. The first English Baptists, coming from the 
Episcopal church, being only sprinkled in infancy, baptize 
each other. 3. In Leicestershire, they did the same. 4. In 
America they did the same. There is your Apostolic succes- 
sion, with a vim! ! 

Here you see that Dr. Graves' position is utterly crushed. 
We do not go back into the depths of the ages to snap the 
chain into a thousand fragments, but right there, in the seveo- 
teenth century, v^here their own historians record the facts, and 



The Lord's Supper. 829 

we find the crushing exhibition of fact tliat utterly destroys 
the last shadow of Dr. Graves' position. [N'o chain is stronger 
than its weakest link. l>ut here four most essential links part 
in sunder at once, under Baptist hands. 

It is strange, indeed, that Baptists will persist, in the face of 
such palpable facts, in asserting such medieval claims. After 
telling us that for "more than five hundred years * * * 
impenetrable clouds of darkness are spread over the whole 
history of the whole kingdom [of England] so far as the Bap- 
tists are concerned, and no glimpses can be had of any people 
who bore any resemblance to them;" (p. 305). Benedict at 
last, p. 450, details how the American Baptists originated. 

FIRST CHURCH IN PROVIDENCE. 
"This cliurch, which is the oldest of the Baptist denomination in Amer- 
ica, was form^ed in March, 1639. Its first memhers were twelve in number ; 
viz.: Roger Williams, Ezekiel Holliman, * * Thos. Olney, etc. * 
As the whole company were in their own estimation, imbaptized, and 
they knew of no administrator in any of the infant settlements to whom 
they could apply, they, with much propriety, hit on the following expedi- 
ent : Ezekiel Holliman, a man of gifts and piety, by the suffrages of the 
little company, was appointed to baptize Mr. Williams, who, in return, 
baptized Holliman and the other ten. -•■ * -'• Any company of 

Christians may commence a church in gospel order, by their own mu- 
tual agreement, without any reference to any other body; and this church 
has all the power to appoint any one of their number, whether minister 
or layman, to commence anew the administration of gospel institutions. 
This is the Baptist doctrine of Apostolic Succession, etc.," p. 450. 

How does this look along-side of Dr. Graves' positions and 
modern Baptists? Dr. Backus, who copied the records, lived 
and wrote over a hundred years ago, confirms all these facts, 
and so does all history. 

lN"ow, then, it is certain, absolutely certain, by these Baptist 
records, that Baptist ministers, from Dr. Graves' premises, are 
not ministers by divine authority, have no right to baptize or 
administer the Lord's Supper, and that there is no Baptist 
church I You are not a church, from Dr. Graves' standpoint; 
your baptism is invalid, and you dare not take the Lord's Sup- 
per. To such a fearful pass do your premises drive you, by 
inexorable and remorseless logic ! 

Let us now examine other points in the communion. 

IL Li the history oi the Lord's Supper, our position is fully 



830 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

sustained, Dr. Graves' destroyed. The Lord's Supper is a 
modification, simplification of the Paschal feast, instituted by 
Moses, (Exodus xii, 3-2.0) as Christian baptism was the perfec- 
tion of the baptism from Moses down, till John's ended. This 
was the Lord's Fassover, as " Christ, our Passover, is slain for 
us." !N'ow, 

1. The Passover was instituted before baptism ; it being 
instituted before baptism was named, ordained, hinted or prac- 
ticed as a religious rite, under the words, "wash,"" sprinkle," 

2. It was celebrated, eaten, its benefits secured, before bap- 
tism was named, or its law (washing, etc.) given. See Exodus 
xii,3 to 20, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28— they "went away and did as the 
Lord had commanded Moses, so. did they." 

3. Baptism does not occur till Exodus xiv, 1-22 compared 
with 1st Cor. x, 1-2. 

4. It was not formally ordained till Exodus xxix, 4; xxx, 
18-22; xl, 30-32; nor administered till Leviticus viii, 6. Here 
we see that the Lord's Supper had the precedence altogether, 
went before baptism, instead of coming after it. 

III. In the New Testament historj^ of it, the same facts hold 
good. 

1. The Lord's Supper was ordained before Christ was taken 
or crucified. (Matt, xxvi, 17-28; Luke xxii, 17-21; Mark 
xiv, 12-21. 

2. Christian baptism was never named or hinted, so far as 
the Bible tells us, till forty days after his resurrection. (Matt. 
xxvii; 19-21). 

3. The Lord's Supper was administered, as above, before the 
arrest or crucifixion of Christ. Christian baptism was never 
administered till on the day of Pentecost. (Acts ii, 41-47). 

The Lord's Supper was administered by Christ in person, 
most solemnly ; whereas he never baptized personally with 
water, (John iv, 2), nor did his apostles usually, (Acts x, 48; 
1 Cor. i, 15-17), but left it to inferior parties. 

5. The Lord's Supper was ordained and administered before 
there was a church at all, according to Dr. Graves' logic, for 
he admitted on infant baptisrn that John the Harbinger did 



The Lord's Supper. 831 

not organize a church. Well, then, Christ did not personally 
baptize with or in water. If the apostles were baptized, there- 
fore he admits it was by John. That did not put them into 
any church, he admits — there was no church then, he says. 
J^ow, when did the church rise? How did it originate? 
Will he tell us? He cannot. As Christ never baptized with 
water, these apostles, he believes, were baptized by John; 
yet that did not initiate them into any church — no church is in 
existence. When and how did they get into the church? 
You assert that no one can get into the church without Chris- 
tian (water) baptism. Please settle this enormous difficulty. 
But you assert that Eph. ii, 15, " makes in himself of t\\|(9iin 
(of Jews and Glentiles) one new man" — "is a new church." 
Not a Gentile was brought in till eight or ten years after Pen- 
tecost, nor till eleven years after the sermon on the Mount, 
where you said the church was organized. IN^ow, (1) how 
could he organize a church, in your sense of a congregation, 
visible establishment, officered, etc., and no baptism • with 
which to initiate them, and no congregation but all dispersed 
and gone in an hour? (2) If the Christian church was estab- 
lished, originated or constituted 01^ the Mount eleven years 
before Gentiles came in, how came it that he made a new 
church eleven vears afterward? AVhat became of the church 
made on the Mount? Here we have a Jewish church; it is 
destroyed by the fiat of the Almighty; a new, real one is 
established on the Mount, (Matt, v,) yet (1) it is not named or 
hinted at; (2) no record of it existed — ^how it originated, when 
it expired to give way to the new church of Eph, ii. 15. (3) 
Dr. Graves never has told us, never will, how its members 
came in. If ever baptized, it was, he admits, by John the 
baptizer. But he admits that that did not put them into a 
church, for he says there was no church then. They were 
regenerated, were baptized, yet in no church. Suddenly they 
are constituted a church, without any baptism, no officers, no 
local congregation, nothing to show its existence. He repels 
infant baptism if is to be proven by inference, yet here every- 
thing — church, membership, the very existence of the whole 
church are mere inferences without a premise anywhere 
whence he can draw an inference. There is logic for you ! 



832 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

A.nd this is the tottering, sandy, wretched foundation, as feeble 
as the baseless fabric of a vision, of all this proscription, intol- 
erance and fanaticism ! ! ! 

IV. The negative of this proposition is sustained by the 
only conditions laid down by Christ and the apostles, as pre- 
requisite to taking the Lord's Supper. 

1. Nothing in the Lord's Supper, nothing that is a prerequi- 
site to it, necessitates baptism as a prerequisite. He says the 
Lord's Supper is a church ordinance. Grant it. So is 
baptism. Yet, is baptism prerequisite to baptism? It is a 
church ordinance, yet he believes it is altogether administered 
to parties outside the church, to bring them into the church. 
So that point utterly fails. 

Dr. Graves believes that we are regenerate, pardoned spir- 
itually, partake ot Christ's blood, are adopted into his spiritual 
family, made his sons, heirs, all before w^e are baptized. Yet 
not all these exalted privileges and rights entitle us to this 
one rite! Is not that strange, absurd, and un-Christ-like ? 
We are permitted to spiritually take of Christ's precious blood 
to eat his spiritual body by faith, yet denied the mere em- 
blems thereof. 

2. But Christ and Paul tell us the exact conditions. They 
are, first, ''This do in remembrance of me;" Luke xxii. 19; 
Cor. xi. 24; second, ''Discerning the Lord's body" — same 
thing. Third, " Let a man examine himself" — not be exam- 
ined by you, 1 Cor. xi. 28. All these facts, the only ones given 
save 1 Cor. x. 16, 18, show that baptism is not a pre-requisite 
to the Lord's Supper. This last passage is confirmatory, 
strongly, of these facts. It shows, 1st, that all Christians are 
members of "the church." 2d, that all who "are partakers of 
that only bread." — Christ — as all Christians are admitted to 
be by Dr. Graves and all, are entitled to "the communion of 
the body of Christ " 

3. Judas partook of the Lord's Supper. See Mark xiv. 18, 
23 ; Luke xxii. 17-21. "The twelve apostles" are present. 
"One of you which eateth with me shall betray me." "It is 
one of the twelve that dippeth with me." And as they did 
eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and break it, and gave tc 



The Lord's Supper. 833 

them, and said, "Take, eat; this is my body. And he took 
the cup, * * * and they all drank of it." Mark xiv. 23. 

This clearly shows that, 1st, Judas partook of it. 2d, Christ 
left each, professing to be his disciple, to examine himself and 
80 eat, taking on himself the responsibility involved. 

If it be insisted that Judas was baptized, as we have all the 
proof of his baptism that we have of the other eleven apostles, 
yet was he regenerate ? for Dr. Graves does not believe he 
was saved. 

If he was baptized, yet unregenerate, it destroys one of his 
dogmas and propositions. If he was regenerate, it destroys 
another proposition Dr. Graves maintains. Either Judas was or 
was not baptized. If he was baptized, yet lost. Dr. Graves and 
Baptists are all wrong in requiring regeneration before baptism , 
as they deny he was regenerate. If he was not baptized, how 
came he in the church on the Mount? If not baptized, no 
more were the other eleven. 

If he was not regenerate, his baptism was no baptism, by 
Dr. Graves' position. Any way, therefore, he was not baptized, 
yet he took the Lord's Supper. 

4. The Baptist position is far more fleshly, takes a far more 
carnal, less Spiritual view of she Lord's Supper than did the 
ancient Jews of religion, and attaches far more importance 
than did they in any age, to mere external rites. The first 
record of a carnal ordinance commanded was circumcision; 
Gen. xvii. 11-14. A severe penalty, even excommunication, 
was threatened against every male who failed of it. Yet for 
forty years it was omitted; Josh. v. 4-8. Aaron even trans- 
gressed the law, not eating the sin offering of the people, yet 
it was allowed; Lev. x. 16-20. Joshua was wroth against 
Medad and Eldad prophesying in the camp, not first going to 
the Lord at the tent door -of the tabernacle, and wished Moses 
to forbid such irregularity; Num. xi. 16-26. Yet Moses 
rebukes him, and prays for more such prophets. In 2 Cor. xxx. 
13- -27, we learn that the people came to the passover in an 
undue manner, were not baptized either as the law generally 
demanded of defiled persons, yet ate it otherwise than was 
even provided by law, yet in prayer all was sanctioned by the 
52 



834 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Lord. David ate the shew-bread against tlie law, yet Christ 
commends it. The people took the Lord's passover; Num.x. 
6--13, as well as 2 Chron. xxx. 13-27 — all ate it together, yet 
a large part were unbaptized from ceremonial defilement. 

Hence we see that even repeated violations of the law were 
allowed in communion among the Hebrews, yet, now, 1st, 
where no law can be found to sustain close communion, 2d, 
where all law is against the Baptist position, we find their con- 
sciences so very acute and tender that the ancient Jews show 
a far superior view of the spirituality of religion and its 
heavenly toleration, to the Baptists. 

' 5. They say it is a church ordinance, and the parties must 
be baptized. Suppose we grant all this, yet we are entitled to 
it. 1st, we baptize all our people. 2d, all Christians are bap- 
tized with the Spirit; 1 Cor. xii. 13; Eph. i. 13-14; Rom, vi. 
3-4; Acts X. 44-47; xi. 15-17. "By one Spirit are we all 
baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, bond 
or free." This is the "one baptism" of Eph. iv. 4, 5. 3d, all 
Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., who are genuine Christians, 
who love God, are members of Christ's church, and so, from 
your premises, are entitled to the Lord's Supper. * 

6 If unbaptized people cannot take the Supper, or admin- 
ister it, how can unbaptized, unimmersed people administer 
the capacity for it? 1st, The Baptists in England received 
the only baptism they have from sprinkled Episcopalians. 
They never were baptized by immersed parties. Baptist his- 
tory, English history, all records on the subject show that the 
English Baptists did not affiliate with or receive baptism from 
the Anabaptists, but from sprinkled Episcopalians, between 
1602 andl608. 

In America, Ezekiel Holliman , who never had been immersed , 
baptized Roger Williams, and he in turn baptized Holliman 
and the rest. All the Baptist churches in America receive 
their baptism thence, save the very few who got it from the 
equally inconsistent source in England. 

These facts we have already presented, and will give fuller 
details on another proposition. The Baptist rule, as already 



The Lord's Supper. 835 

quoted from Dr. Graves, is thus laid down in the Texas Baptist 

Pulpit, vol, i. p. 18, 19, 1873 : 

' ' The properly appointed oflBcers of a government alone can admin- 
ister its laws. Neither Scripture nor reason authorizes us to recognize 
any man at this day, as an official minister of the gospel, but one appointed 
to that office by a church of Jesus Christ, nor any pretended administra- 
tors of the ordinance of baptism as valid, except those performed by a 
properly authorized administrator. All others are usurpers and rebels 
against the government of Christ's church. Truth requires us to view 
and treat them as such." 265. 

^N'ow, bj this rule, no Baptist has a right to baptize. He 
has no right to the Lord's Supper. He has no right to preach, 
Every Baptist among you eats and drinks damnation to his 
own soul, every time he approaches the Lord's table. How 
dare you do it ? Why do you do it ? Because not a Baptist 
BELIEVES IT ! It will do to prosclyte with, agitate, use to un- 
settle the ignorant, superstitious and unwary, but no one really 
believes it. It is too absurd, narrow, unscriptural, anti-Chris- 
tian — against letter and spirit — law and gospel — truth and 
righteousness. It is a relic of superstition, a whim of the 
bigotry of the dark ages, a hydra-headed moral monster, a 
usurper and a deformity to Christianity ! And to enforce it, 
they claim an uninterrupted succession from John till now. 
The baptism of the German Anabaptists was from Homan 
Catholic priests alone. Munzer was a priest in orders. He 
had no other baptism. Donatists, through whom Orchard, 
Eord, and Dr. Graves claim succession, baptized infants, had 
priests, bishops, confessional, etc., etc., and their baptism was 
from Rome, and no historian will assert otherwise. They 
claim succession through the Novatians. Yet their founder, 
Novatus, they know never was baptized save by sprinkling on 
his bed, A. D. 251 ! 

Here the chain snaps again, ^o chain can be stronger than 
its weakest link. They baptized inf^jts universally also! 
And these are the links in the chain of Baptist succession. 
They had bishops, priests, confession, all in the Catholic sense 
of that day ! Our Baptist friends can claim to receive baptism 
from such sources, and take the communion on such authorities; 
yet their tender consciences will not let them commune with 



836 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

men whose virtues, character, and holy influences rise as far 
above all these as the sun rises above the moon ! Alas for 
consistency ! 

7. Do vou debar all those from communion who fail to do 
their duty — obey Christ, keep his commands ? Alas, you 
know you do not ! Here your inconsistencies are manifest in 
that, 1st, You exalt the value or utility of a mere external 
rite far above the great matters of the law — love, faith, purity, 
charity ; yea, above honesty, truth, and right ! This is pure 
Pharisaism ? 2d, It assumes that the apostles always promptly, 
at once, baptized their converts, when all the proof goes to 
show that they did not, but left it to subordinates. See Acts 
X. 44-47 ; I Cor. i. 15-17. There is no record of any one of 
the twelve apostles ever baptizing any body, and Paul, the 
added thirteenth apostle, only baptized a few persons. 

Let us now notice Dr. Graves' points, though they have all 
gone down before the overwhelming facts and arguments 
already adduced : 

Whatever Hibbard, etc., may say, our Discipline and Wat- 
son, together with the practice of our leading divines, are our 
only standards of Bible interpretation. Our Discipline reads : 

"Ye that do truly and earnestly repent, etc., and are in love and charity 
with your neighbors, etc., etc., following Christ's holy commandments, 
draw near by faith." 

Watson's Institutes, part iv. chap. iv. p. 735, declares the same : 
* All are welcome there who truly love Christ, and all who sincerely 

d^ire to love, serve and obey Him. All truly penitent persons : all who 

take Christ as the sole foundation of their hope^ etc." 

To all he says there, we fully subscribe. 

But Prof. Ripley, than whom there is not a more influential 
and enlightened Baptist on the Continent, states that we are a 
church, but not regular : Baptist Library, vol. iii. p. 214. It 
is remarkable that the greatest Baptist lights in every century 
of their existence, always have advocated open communion 
with other Christians. The first founders of the Baptist 
Church in England, then John Bunyan seventeenth century, 
Robt. Hall next, and Spurgeon, all were open communionists 
of the boldest stamp. 

Dr. Griffin did not hold as Dr. Graves made him. I have 



The Lord's Supper. 837 

his words here, and he only allowed that each should be 
allowed to judge for himself if he were baptized. That is 
vastly different from your position which requires that, 1st, 
he be baptized ; 2d, you to be judge of whether he was or not ; 
8d, that he be regenerate; 4th, you being judge of his change 
from his experience; 5th, he must be baptized for a proper ob- 
ject; 6th, you the judge; 7th, he must be baptized with the 
right symbolism; 8th, you the judge whether it be right sym- 
bolism ; 9th, by a lawful authority, a Baptist preacher, who 
was himself, and all his baptizing predecessors, born in Bap- 
tist orders, and each and all of them baptized after regenera- 
tion, for proper purpose, by right symbolism^ by equally valid 
authority; 10th, you the judge of all this. Each of all these 
ten conditions must infallibly hold good in the baptism of 
«every Baptist preacher in the line clear back to the apostles ! ! ! 
Yet no such conditions hold good in any two given links out 
of the hundreds of thousands that strain it at every link. How 
weaker than a rope of sand such airy and delusive claims! 
This claim implies in every Baptist preacher — 

1st Omnipresence — ubiquity. He has to know that these 
ten conditions hold good in every case for 1800 years. Thi^i 
i'equires Omnipresence-— an attribute of Grod alone. 

2d. That every Baptist preacher be Omniscient — know all 
the hearts and facts in all cases of their baptisms for 1800 years. 

3. That all of them be infallible in judgment. If they 
blundered, erred, were biased, failed to do as the law requires, 
all fails, ^s "no chain is stronger than its weakest link," How 
ean they know that the conditions hold good in any given case ? 
They cannot, unless omnipresent, infallible— these attributes 
they do not claim. 

Dr. Graves assumes that we give the Supper to those who 
cannot discern the Lord's body. What is to hinder regenerat- 
ed, spiritually baptized, adopted sons, from discerning the 
Lord's body? Are not these things spiritually discerned? Is 
water baptism necessary to enable us to remember Christ and 
discern his body? He knows it is not. Why, then, press in 
such objections that are absolutely nothing? It is because it 
Is the best that can be done. If he had solid arguments, he 



838 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

would use them. He says I am a bold man. Only so when 
armed with the panoply of truth. " Thrice is he armed" who 
hath this as his armor. 

We must have " Christian Baptism." Why^ the twelve 
apostles and seventy disciples, and one hundred and twenty 
disciples never had that. Yet they surely took it. We know 
the twelve did. Besides, John's baptism was " unto repent- 
ance." Is that the object of yours ? His was that Christ 
might be made manifest to Israel ; John 1. That is not yours. 
Yet you say if it is not for the right purpose, with right sym- 
bolism, all is invalid, of no force. Worse, and more of it 
here, all the time. 

You send out missionaries and their wives, and these begin 
by organizing themselves into a church the first thing. Very 
well. How do the}' do this 1 They do not rebaptize each 
other. Baptism is the door in, you say. How do they now 
get in ? Into what church does baptism put the man bap- 
tized ? How do these get into a church that has no existence ? 
You deny the existence of the invisible church. You only 
admit church existence in the local congregation- — the visible 
assembly. When these parties are in transit where is their 
membership ? Do they not hold it alone on the basis we go 
on — in the invisible church, any members of which can gather 
themselves together and constitute a valid, visible church 
with ecclesiastical rights and functions ? When these parties 
are in transit, as a person with a letter, they are not a visible 
organization. They hold their membership by virtue of be- 
ing members of '^the church," the spiritual family of 
God. They organize themselves by virtue of the rules 
of order recognized by the church. These are the facts, 
and utterly destroy the church theories of our opponents and 
perfectly sustain our views. Having utterly destroyed your 
Ihe-ories, and from the Scriptures completely sustained ours, 
we cannot but admire the Methodist view as contrasted with 
yours. 

1st. Your view rests upon remote and most strained inter- 
pretations, and illegitimate deductions. Ours rests upon th© 
plain word of God — thus saitk the Lord. 



The Lord's Supper. 839 

2d. Yours I'ests upon false records of history, unsupported 
by a single fact, but contradictory of all the well-established 
facts of history. Ours stand upon the plain words of inspira- 
tion, and are sustained by the whole analogy of faith and vin- 
dicated by the spirit and genius of Christianity. 

3d. Our views are broad and generous, and tend to harmo- 
nize all Christians and bring them into cordial co-operation 
for the good of all men and the glory of God, while yours 
tend to alienation, narrow-mindedness, intolerance, proscrip- 
tion and persecution. 

4th. Ours alone put us into sympathy with the brotherhood 
of all ages and all climes — all times and all dispensations. By 
our view, the church of God, in all ages, all times, all dispen- 
sations is One ! Unity pervades the entire body, Christ heads 
the universal brotherhood. When the Methodist, the Pres- 
byterian bows at the altar aiid receives the communion, he is 
put into sympathy with the whole family of God, in Heaven 
and earth ; he is in sympathy with a brotherhood as extended 
as redeemed humanity ! 

His arms of sympathy and love take in all God^s people, of 
every name, order, clime and country. His warm heart beats 
in response to the heart of Abel and Lamech ; of Enoch and 
Elijah; of Abraham and Moses— is in sympathetic tendency 
with those in heaven, and clasps fraternal hands with those 
b^eyond the flood. Here is presented a communion that 
reflects that above. Here Christ Jesus is recognized as the 
head of all, and in Him all are united, in one. This is Methodism, 
—this is Christianity I — [lime out. 



840 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SECOND SPEECH- 

Replication. 

Mr. President : — Althongh the time given me to discnss 
this suhject is limited to three hours, I shall devote this half 
hour in replying to my opponent, although his entire speech 
is wholly irrelevant to the proposition under discussion^ which 
is, " Christian Baptism is prerequisite to the Lord^s Snpper." 
This is a question to he settled by the word of God 
alone. Did Christ appoint it before He did baptism ? Did He 
celebrate it before ? Did He give it in His life-time to those 
baptized or unbaptized ? Did the Apostles ? Was it invaria- 
bly celebrated in the church when assembled together as such, 
or was it offered to the unbaptized^ and even to sinners as a 
" means of grace ?" All must see that the invariable order 
in which we find it observed by the Apostles^ and ITew Testa- 
ment churches, must be the invariable law to us. But he 
has turned aside to devote most of his time to an attack upon 
Baptist history, but it is all he can do. 

Now, Mr. President, I ask you what in the name of reason 
has the question, w^hether there has been a Baptist church 
"from the days of John the Baptist until now," to do with the 
question under discussion ? Suppose John the Baptist had 
never preached. Suppose there never had been a Baptist 
church or Methodist Society, what has that do with this ques- 
tion ? Suppose Eld. Ditzler could prove that the Baptists 
originated with those Pedobaptists — the mad men of Munster, 
or with John Smith or Roger Williams the Se-Baptist& — 
never were baptized originally, or partook of theLord^s Supper, 
what possible bearing would those facts, if the}^ really were 
facts, have upon this question in any way ? None whatever. 
Whether there is, or is not, an open sea around the North Pole 
has just as much to do with it, and Eld. Ditzler knows it. 
But his object is apparent^ he has consumed his hour in seek- 



The Lord's Supper. 841 

iiig to prejudice yi^n who hear, and those who may read this 
debate, against Baptists by grossly misstating what they do 
hold and teach, and misrepresenting their history. How dis- 
creditable this in a Christian controversialist! This, Sir, is 
not honorable discussion, but abuse. I do not say this because 
there is a page or paragraph in the history of my people of 
which I am ashamed. ITo, Sir, her history, let men like Eld. 
Ditzler, who feel they are called of God to use any means to 
destroy Baptists from the face of the earth, say what and do 
what they please, still her history, however darkened, not with 
crime, but with sorrows and persecutions ; or however bright, 
is the history of the true church of the Lord Jesus. One 
thing is certain, if churches, now known as Baptist, holding 
essentially the same doctrines, administering the same ordi- 
nances for the same purpose, and to the same subjects, are not 
the true churches of Christ, then Christ has never had a 
church on this earth. This fact is patent upon the pages of 
inspiration, pronounced by the lips of prophets, and the Son 
of God Himself, that, whatever the character of the church 
and kingdom which Christ "set up," or "built" during his per- 
sonal ministry, that organization was to continue essentially 
unchanged and pure until he should come again. It was never 
to be broken in pieces or demolished; from the moment "it 
was set up it was to stand forever." See Daniel ii. 44 : 

' ' And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a king- 
dom, which shall never be destroyed : and* the kingdom, shall not be left to 
other people, but it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, 
and it shall stand for ever." 

There was to be no originating the kingdom again in sub- 
sequent times, nor was it to be prevailed against by corrup- 
tion any more than by the sword — for, said its divine founder, 

"On this Rock" ["Thou art Christ the Son of the living God"] wiU I 
build my church and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it." Matt, 
xvi. 18. 

There was to be no reforming this church ! to assert that it 
needed to be " set up" again or drawn out of the bosom of the 
Man of Sin and reformed in morals and manners, is to stamp the 
declaration of the prophets, of Christ and the Apostles, with 
falsehood. The corrupt organization known in history as the 
Greek Catholic Church could not have been this church for it 



842 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

was originated in the third and fourth centuries. It could 
not have been the Roman or Western Catliolic Church known 
as the Papacy first originated in A. D. 606-10. It could not 
have been the organizations that Luther or Calvin or Henry 
Yin, set up, for they originated in the sixteenth century and 
were cut off from, and reformed out of the Papacy. Much less 
could it have been Methodism, for such a system never was 
known to the world before the days of John Wesley, and never 
presumed to assume the name of church before 1784. 

You have heard Elder Ditzler's assertions touching the ori- 
gin and history and succession of Baptists. I will take time 
to read you the statements of scholars and historians who 
know whereof they affirmed, and though Pedobaptists, candid 
and honest enough to confess the truth. 

I will introduce the testimony of the most distinguished 
Catholic of his day. Cardinal Hosius, President of the Coun- 
cil of Trent— (A. D. 1550). 

"If the truth of religion were to be judged of by the readiness and cheer- 
fulness which a man of any sect shows in suffering, then the opinion and 
persuasion of no sect can be truer and surer than that of Anabaptists 
[Baptists,] since there have been none, for these twelve hundred years past, 
that have been more generally punished, or that have more cheerfully and 
steadfastly undergone, and even offered themselves to, the most cruel sorts 
of punishment, than these people." 

" The Anabaptists are a pernicious sect, of which kind the Waldensian 
brethren seem also to have been. Nor is this heresy a modern thing, for 
it existed in the time of Austin." — Reese s Reply to Wall, p. 20. 

I will introduce a Lutheran Historian, Mosheim, who was 
as much opposed to Baptists as my opponent. His history is a 
standard work and republished by the Methodist book con- 
cern, and it is made a text-book for Methodist ministers. 
He says — 

" The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of Anabaptists, 
bj^ their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over 
to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites from that famous 
man to whom they owe the greatest part of their present felicity, is hid 
IN THE REMOTE DEPTHS OF ANTIQUITY, and is, Consequently, extremely 
difficult to be ascertained." — Vol. iv, pp. 427, 8, Maclaine's Editon of ISll. 

Again : ' It may be observed that the Mennonites are not entirely mis- 
taken when they boast of their descent from the Waldejises, Petrobrus- 
sians, and other ancient sects who wew usually considered as witnesses of 
the truth, in the times of universal darkness and superstition. Before 



The Lord's Supper. 843 

the rise of Luther and Calvin, there lay, concealed [this looks like a fulfill- 
ment of the Revelation, where we find the woman driven into the wilder- 
ness — i. e.j obscurity !] in almost all the countries of Europe, particularly 
in Bohemia, Moravia, Switzerland, and Germany, many persons who ad- 
hered tenaciously to the following doctrines, which the Waldenses, Wick- 
liffltes and Hussites, [we do not feel reproached by association with such 
spmts,] had maintained, some in a more disguised, and others in a more 
public manner, viz. : " That the kingdom of Christ, or the visible Church 
he had established upon earth, was an assembly of true and real saints, 
and ought, therefore, to be inaccessible to the wicked and unrighteous, 
and also exempt from all those institutions which human prudence sug- 
gests, to oppose the progress of iniquity, or to correct and reform trans- 
gressors." 

This is a frank admission that the Waldenses, as well as the 
Wickliffites, were opposed to infant baptism and Church mem- 
bership, since they admitted none but '''real saints. '' mio the 
visible Church, and that they — as Baptists have ever been — 
were opposed to a religion oi force and persecution. 

I will quote the testimony of Zwingle, a Presbyterian, the 
co-laborer of, Calvin — who opposed Baptists with pains and 
penalties, even unto death — • 

•'The institution of Anabaptism is no novelty, but for thirteen hun- 
dred years has caused great disturbance in the Church, and has acquired 
such a strength, that the attempt in this age to contend with it, appeared 
futile for a time." 

This caiTies the succession of Baptists back to the year A, 
D. 225 ! 

Finally I will quote the impartial testimony of those two 
distinguished scholars. Dr. Ypeig, Professor of Theology, at 
Groningen, and Rev. J. J. Dermout, Chaplain to the King of 
Holland, who were appointed by the King to write the His- 
tory of the Reformed Church of the Netherlands that was 
published in 1819. These men were qualified for the task, 
and they had " access to all the libraries and archives of Ger- 
many." They knew whether the Baptists originated in Ger- 
many in the sixteenth century, with John Smyth or the Mun- 
sterites. They devoted one chapter to a brief history of the 
Baptists — and I quote, from the conclusion of that chapter, the 
result of their investigation. 

" We have now seen that the Baptists, who were formerly called Ana- 
baptists, and in later times Mennonites, were the original Waldenses, and 
'Who have long, in the history of the Church, received the honor of that 



844 * The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ojfigin. On this account, the Baptists may be considered the 

OCTLY ChRISTIAJN COMMUNITY WHICH HAS STOOD SINCE THE APOS- 
TLES, AND AS A Christian society which has preserved pure 

THE DOCTRINE OF THE GOSPEL THROUGH ADD AGES. The perfectly 

Correct external economy of the Baptist denomination, tends to confirm 
the truth disputed by the Romish Church, that the Reformation brought 
about in the sixteenth century was in the highest degree necessary; and 
at the same time goes to refute the erroneous notions of the Cathohcs, 
that their communion is the most ancient." See Encyclopedia of Re- 
ligious Knowledge, Art. Mennonites;" also, the "Southern Baptist Re- 
view," Vol. V, No 1, Art. 1, for full translation of the Chapter.! 

Now, which will you believe, Eld. Ditzler's unqualified 
assertions, or Cardinal Hosius, Zwingle, Mosheirn, and these 
distinguished men ? If these witnesses tell the truth, and no 
unprejudiced man will question it, all can see that Baptists, 
by whatever name they were called, never derived their bap- 
tism nor succession from Rome, or any of her family — and that 
the declaration of Sir. Isaac Newton is true, that '' the Baptists 
are the only people that never symbolized with the Papacy." 
We repudiate Apostolic succession, a doctrine so dear to the 
Episcopacy, for the Apostles never had successors, but we do, 
and have a right to claim church succession ; i. e., that, in the lan- 
guage of these historians, ours is the only Christian commun- 
ity that has stood since the days of the Apostles, and has 
during all these ages, preserved pure the doctrines of the 
Gospel until this day. This is what we do claim, a continuity 
of churches, and if our claim is not good, history nor the Bible 
itself can be credited. 

It is not true that historical Baptists formerly, before the days 
of the Reforaiation, called Anabaptists, were one and the 
same with the G-erman Anabaptists orMunsterites that arose in 
the sixteenth century. Their enemies sought to put this shame- 
ful slander upon them; but what say Drs. Ypeig and Dermout. 
Speaking of the Munsterites,they call them Protestants — i.e,.^ 
Pedobaptists, who left Rome under the lead of the Reformers. 
Baptists never were Protestants. They say: "• These Prostest- 
ants are known in history by the name of Anabaptists, and ought, 
byno means to be considered the same as theBaptists." If any 
one wishes to examine Eld. Ditzler's assertions touching our 

t All these quotations can be found in "Trilemma. ' ' By J. R Graves, 



The Lord's Supper. 845 

baptism, originatirjgwith, or having any connection with John 
Snijth's, or that the only baptism the English Baptists had, 
was sprinkling, derived from the Episcopal church, or that of 
American Baptists, from Eoger Williams, I refer them to 
*' Baptist Succession," a work compiled from reliable authori- 
ties, by D. B. Eay of this State ; and to Adlam's First Baptist 
Church in America, to Orchard's, and Ivemy's history of 
English Baptists and to Jones' History of the Church. The 
charges of Eld. Ditzler are unsupported by reliable history. 
J ohn Smyth never was connected with any Baptist church in his 
life, and no Baptist church with him. Roger Williams never was 
a Baptist, never was connected with any Baptist church, and no 
Baptist church existing on earth to-day, ever had any connec- 
tion with him, or his baptism. I know what I say, and I 
believe that you who hear me this day, believe me when I say 
it. I have never yet failed to make good my assertions, and 
can prove it against any man or angel af&rming it. Having 
repelled, with historical facts, the aspersions cast upon my peo- 
ple by my opponent, I now return to the discussion of the 
question. It should be known that the historical, as well as 
the Scriptural claims of my church were offered by the Baptist 
Committee to be discussed, but declined, and the claim of the 
Baptist church in this place, and every other one like it, to be a 
Scriptural church, were conceded by the Methodist Committee 
in writing. Then we not only have a Scriptural organization, 
polity, and membership, but Scriptural ordinances also. What 
more ? 

1 thank him for introducing so much excellent matter from 
the paper I edit, and the Texas Baptist. Every orthodox 
Baptist in the land will endorse the sentiments. Without a 
Scriptural baptism, no one can be a member, much less a 
minister of Christ's church, and no act is Scriptural save that 
of immersion by an authorized officer, and with the proper 
design; and I freely accept all the consequences of the position. 

It does not follow that if the officer who immersed me, was 
in fact, whether known or unknown to himself, an unregener- 
ate man, that therefore my baptism is null, any more than my 
marriage would be, or the acts of a County Clerk, or Judge, 



846 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of any Court; tbe question is, was he a legally autliorized offi- 
cer? The baptisms of Judas, before he fell, were as valid as 
those of Peter, because he was a duly authorized officer. And 
Judas was a baptized person, though I don't believe he par- 
took of the Supper. It was after he received the sop that he 
went immediately out, and the sop was eaten in connection 
with the Passover, and not the supper. John iii. 3 . 

It is the Church that baptizes through her servants. It is 
her duty to select, so far as she can ascertain, pious ministers, 
and those who are legitimate church members, and her re- 
sponsibility ceases. The candidate is required to apply to a 
Scriptural Church; and receiving baptism at the hands of 
Us officer^ with that the subject's responsibility in the matter 
ends. If he goes to a Masonic Lodge, or a Methodist Society, 
and accepts its initiatory rite instead, however honest he may 
be, he has not been baptized, nor is he a member of Christ's 
Church. - 

It is not left by the King in Zion to the subject, to select 
any act for Christian baptism he pleases ; that's a tatal mistake. 
Suppose one should choose to have the water poured or sprin- 
kled on his toe or foot, would that be baptism ? Eld. Ditzler 
has once in this debate said no. ]Nor does Christ require his 
ministers to be omniscient, to know the heart, but he does 
command them to require, in every case, a ^profession of per- 
sonal faith and regeneration, and when Baptists say this, they 
say no more than does the Methodist Society, through her 
standards, whatever scorn Eld. Ditzler may seek to heap upon 
us for so doing. He thereby inveighs against Ms own church. 

Before I develop the law of the Supper laid down by Paul, 
I will briefly notice a few points in Eld. Ditzler's speech. 

1. He affirms that "the Lord's Supper is a modification and 
simplification of the Paschal Feast instituted by Moses." He 
means by this that the Lord's Supper was substituted in room 
and place of the Jewish Passover, as most Pedobaptists hold 
and teach — and which Eld. Ditzler held until driven from it 
and compelled to surrender— jthat Christian baptism comes in 
the place of circumcision, therefore, it follows that when the 
substitute came in force those rites for which they were sub- 



The Lord's Supper. 847 

stituted were forever abolished. Kow the unscripturalness 
of this position can be seen from the fact that both circum- 
cision and the Jewish Passover were appointed to be ordinanc- 
es to be observed by the Jews '•'forever.^' "Forever," in its 
lowest acceptation, while time is — while any part of eternity is 
measured — certainly did not cease when Christian baptism 
was instituted, or there would have been no time in which 
the Supper could have been instituted or observed ! We are 
conscious that time still is with us ; "forever" has in no sense 
expired, and therefore, both circumcision and the Jewish Pass- 
over are still scripturally in force and enjoined by Almighty 
authority upon the same people to be observed to-day as in 
the days of Moses and Christ. He observed both. His apostles 
and al] the Jewish Christians observed both. They were never 
abolished by Christ nor His apostles. Paul protested against 
the perversion of circumcision, i. e. its observance as a work 
ofrighteousness for their justification before God, but he never. 
in all his ministry, taught the Jews, whether Christians or not, 
to abstain from circumcising their children as God had com- 
manded Abraham to do. Did he not circumcise Timothy 
with his own hands? Did he not go into the Temple with 
shaven head, be at charges with four men who had a vow, in 
order to prove to the Jews and his brethren at Jerusalem that 
he had not at any time taught the Jews that they ought not 
to circumcise their children ? — See Acts xxi. 17-31 

The Jews still rightly observe both these ordinances, and 
we Gentiles are not entitled to either. His first position there- 
fore is groundless. It is to Judaize Christianity, to seek to 
incorporate the old Jewish economy and its rights and ordi- 
nances with it, and foist them into the Christian Church. 

The Paschal Feast was appointed by God to be a memorial 
to the Jews — but to no other nation — forever. 

" And this day shall be unto you for a Memorial : and ye [not Gentiles] 
shall keep it a feast to the Lord throughout your generations : ye shall keep 
it a feast by ordinance Forever." Ex. 12-14. 

It is therefore a living ordinance unto this day with them, 
as is the rite of circumcision, which was commanded to be ob- 
served by Abraham's seed forever — to a thousand generations, 
and it is as much their duty to observe it to-day as it was 



848 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

then^ and they do observe it, as they do the Passover as a 
memorial of their preservation when the first born of Egypt 
were destroyed, and of their deliverance from their bondage 
in the land of Egypt. 

2. His next statement was " the Passover was instituted 
before baptism." If he means Christian Baptism, or Proselyte 
Baptism for which he says Christian Baptism was substituted, 
I agree with him, but I protest against his denominating the 
sprinklings and pourings of the ceremonial law, " baptisms'' — 
i. e., Christian Baptisms, for I demonstrated by God's Word 
and the most eminent authorities in the discussion of the 
first proposition that they were not designated by the Holy 
Spirit " baptisms" — he shall not take exposed and explod- 
ed positions for granted now. The only immersion in the 
history of the Jews that Paul refers to as baptism and type of 
the Christian, was when the fathers of the Jewish nation 
were immersed unto Moses, not in or by water but, " in the 
cloud and in the sea'' — the sea on each &ide and the cloud a 
covering over head. This was the consummating act of their 
actual deliverance from " the house of bondage" and was a 
part of what was to be commemorated in the Memorial Pas- 
sover. The feast was never fully kept according to the pre- 
scribed law of it until they reached the land of Canaan : it 
was but once partially observed in the Wilderness. See 
Num. 28. 

3. His next position is that " the Lord's Supper was in- 
stituted before Christian Baptism, that "Christian Baptism was 
not named, so far as the Bible tells us, or hinted at till forty 
days after Christ's resurrection I" Let all notice this, that the 
baptism which Christ instituted, and ordained his Harbinger 
to administer is not Christian — of Christ ! That the baptism 
Christ himself received was not Christian Baptism; not of Christ, 
not commanded by Christ for us to observe when he says fol- 
low me ! That the baptism his eighty-two ordained ministers 
preached and administered under his own eye for three and 
one half years was not Christian Baptism — not authorized and 
approved by Christ ! That the baptism which the Apostles re- 
ceived, unless they rejected the counsel of God against their 



The Lord's Supper. 849 

own souls as did the Scribes and Pharisees, was not Christian 
Baptism ! That the baptism which Christ commanded no longer 
to be confined to Judea and the Jews, but to be preached and 
administered to believers in Him among all nations, was not 
Christian Baptism ! It is not true that hede novo instituted bap- 
tism when he gave the commission, but only commanded the 
baptism his Apostles had been administering to believers for 
three and a half years, to be extended to the Gentiles, as the latest 
ripest Pedobaptist scholars confess. See Alford m Zoco. Must 
that not be a desperate cause, must not that be a pernicious sys- 
tem, that needs to blot Gospel, Christian baptism out of the 
records of the four Evangelists — and unbaptize not only the 
Apostles, but the Son of God himself! You might, with as 
little sinfulness — profanity — for it is nothing less than profan- 
ing Christ himself, to thus pronounce his baptism unchristian, 
null and void — reject the rest of the Gospel recorded by the 
Evangelists, as the baptism of Jesus by John; for Mark, in- 
spired by the Holy Ghost, declares the baptism of John to be 
" the beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God." 
We have heard of " extremes meeting." Here my opponent 
strikes hands with his Campbellite brethren, in opposing the 
Baptists. Christ's baptism by John is set at nought, and rrocked 
by their " men of war," and sent back to this modern Prelate, 
and this self-same day they will be made friends, and the next 
thing you will hear they, even Methodists and Campbellites, 
who have been for the last thirty years cutting each others 
throats, will set down and feast and fellowship together ! 



850 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S SECOND REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — Doctor Graves seeks to offset 
our argument by saying "Baptism and the Lord's Supper are 
in the church." 

Kow, 1. How could the Lord's Supper be so placed, when 
he says the " new man" of Ephesians xi. 15, 16, was the " new 
church?" This composition of Gentiles and Jews in one 
new body was conditioned in Christ's death, and not an 
actual existence till from eight to ten years after Christ's 
death. Hence, as Gentiles, were not " brought in," not incor- 
porated in the church till after eight years had elapsed /roT/i 
Pentecost, this church did not exist till eight to ten years 
after the supper wa^^ instituted. 

Suppose we grant it is in the church. He says " baptism 
and the Lord's Supper are in the church." But he and all 
immersionists hold that baptism is administered to bring people 
into the church. Hence it is administered to those not in the 
church* If the one is in the church — baptism — yet exclusively 
administered to those outside of the church, surely it shows 
the other, though in the church, can be administered to peo- 
ple who are in the spiritual church, yet not identified with a 
visible organization of it. 

Succession. Wall, so accurate and pains-taking in all things, 
and candid, vol. i. pp. 527-8, Oxford Ed., in two volumes, 
shows that in the sixteenth century there was not a Baptist 
church in England. He tells us of the pernicious principles 
held by a congregation of Anabaptists, who settled about 
London in the times of Elizabeth — last half of the sixteenth 
century, but differing widely from Baptists, and when, in the 
seventeenth century. Baptist churches were organized, they 
would not receive baptism from those Anabaptists. Dr. 
Backus shows that the first Baptist ministers in England 
mthdrew from the English church, 1, 90, Benedict 326, 327. 



The Lord's Supper. 851 

111 AniGricji, as in England, the Baptists did not receive 
their haptism from any other church. We gave you the 
account of it given by the Baptist historians, Backus, vol. i. 
102, 103, Benedict, 450, Cramp, 461. They introduced bap- 
tism themselves. Dr. Ford, p. 114, 115, and Dr. Graves in his 
paper, recently, as well as here, ignores the real origin of 
their church, and claim that John Clark organized their 
church in America, as if it had any historic basis, or bettered 
the case. Benedict, Backus, Cramp, and many historians 
they cite, all show that Roger Williams originated it, and that 
Clark never organized his till 1644. Benedict, 462-3, Backus, 
i. 102-3, Cramp, 461. Now, then, in England, Benedict and 
Cramp both agree that the baptism of Smyth, Helwys, etc., 
originated just as did that of Holliman and E-oger Williams. 
They were ail Episcopalians. They had not been immersed. 
Nor did they recognize the right of the Episcopal church to 
baptize, and they had been baptized in infancy of course. So 
they baptize each other. Here is Benedict's account : 

"It seems that Mr. Smyth and his friends were put to some difficulty in 
reviving the practice of immersion. He and all his discii^les had been 
sprinkled in their infancy ; and therefore, according to their new views, 
were ui] baptized. ' There were, indeed manj^ churches in Holland, who prac- 
ticed immersion ; but, as they differed widely in sentiments from him, he 
did not choose to receive baptism from them. This completely refutes 
Dr. Mosheim's supposition, that the Enghsh Baptists derived their origin 
from the German and Dutch Mennonites; and that, in former times, they 
adopted their doctrine in all its points. On the contrary, we see that the 
first English Baptists of which we have any regular account after the 
Reformation, although living in the midst of the Dutch Mennonites, 
declined receiving baptism from them on account of their difference of 
opinions in many important points. 'The foreign Anabaptists,' says 
Crosby, 'were such as denied Christ's having taken flesh of the Virgin 
Mary, the lawfulness of magistracy, and such like, which Mr. Smyth and 
his followers looked upon as great errors ; so that they could not be thought 
by him proper administrators of baptism. This obliged Mr. Smyth to 
consider of some other means of reviving the ordinance. What method 
he took is not very clearly stated. It is most probable, that those who 
were convinced of the duty of believers' baptism first formed themselves 
into a church, and then appointed two of their number (perhaps Mr. 
Smyth and Mr. Helwys), to baptize each other, and afterwards to bap- 
tize the rest. This subject caused considerable uneasiness and reproach 
to the first Baptists after the Reformation, both General and Particular. 
A similar difficulty occurred at the formation of the original Baptist church 



852 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

in America, by Mr. Roger Williams, who had recom-se to the same expe- 
dient ; and we shall find in the sequel of this history, that the good men 
in Leicestershire, in the middle of the last centmy , when placed in similar 
circumstances, adopted the same method." — Hist, of the Baj). pp. 329-330. 

Dr. Cramp states, "There has been much dispute respecting the man- 
ner in which they proceeded, some maintaining that Smyth baptized him- 
self and then baptized the others. It is a thing of small consequence. 
Baptists do not believe in apostoUc succession, as it is commonly held. 
But the probability is, that one of the brethren baptized Mr. Smyth, and 
that he then baptized the others. The number of these brethren soon 
increased greatly. A church was formed, of which Mr. Smyth was chosen 
pastor. At his death, which took place in 1611, Mr. Thomas Helwys was 
appointed in his place. In the above-mentioned yeav, before Mr. Smyth's 
death, the church pubhshed a Confession of Faith, in twenty-six articles.'' 
—Bap. His. p. 287. 

Thus you see there is an end of the chain there. But in 

Germany, their succession breaks again. The baptism of all 

the Anabaptists was from the Catholics, Munzer, Stork, and 

all their followers, and Menno, were all Catholics, and the 

only baptism they had was at the hands of Rome ; Munzer was 

a Roman priest in orders. But the community of Baptists 

that Smyth and Helwj's founded, were General Baptists, who 

afterwards ran into Socinianism and declined in morals. But 

others of them lapsed into Arianism as J)r. Cramp testifies: 

"Arianism had crept in among them." etc. — His. of the Bap. 

pp. 498-9. 

Benedict records p. 335 — "Towards the close of the seventeenth century, 
a portion of the members of the General Baptist community began to in- 
cline to a much more lax system of theology, which in the end spread 
widely among the people, and carried a considerable portion of them over 
to the Unitarian, or as it was then denominated, Socinian side." 

But the Calvinistic wins^ is the branch of the church, which 
Dr. Graves professes to connect wuth, rather, in their succes- 
sion theories. But they were open •communionists. 

"This church followed the open communion plan for a number of years ; 

but a portion of the members becoming dissatisfied with the system, by 
mutual agreement, the Baptists eventually went off by themselves.'' 

Dr. Cramp thus relates it: "In the year 1633 an event occurred which 
requhes specific notice. This was the formation of the first Particular or 
Calvinistic Baptist Church in England. Hitherto the Baptists favored the 
Arminian views. William KifRn gives the following account: "There 
was a congregation of Protestant Dissenters of the Independent persuasion 
in London, gathered in the year 1616, whereof Mr. Henry Jacob was the 
first pastor, and after him succeeded Mr. John Lathorp, who was their 



The Lord's Supper. 853 

minister at this time. In this society several persons, finding Lb at tlic* 
congregation kept not to their first principles of separation, and being also 
convinced that baptism was not to be administered to infants, but to such 
only as professed faith in Chiist, desired that they might be dismissed from 
that communion, and allowed to form a distinct congregation, in such 
order as was most agreeable to their own sentiments. The church, con- 
sidering that they were now grown very numerous, and so more than 
could in those times of persecution conveniently meet together, and believ- 
ing also that those persons acted from a principle of conscience, and not 
obstinacy, agreed to allow them the liberty they desired, and that they 
should be constituted a distinct church; which was performed the 12th 
of September, 1633. And as they beheved that baptism was not rightly 
administered to infants, so they looked upon the baptism they had received 
in that age as invaUd ; whereupon most or all of them received a new 
baptism. Their minister was Mr. John Spilsbury." — Bap. His. pp. 302-8. 

Here now their baptism was evidently just like all the rest, 
self constituted. They all believed and held to the same posi- 
sition to which we all assent 

Those who wish to see the views set forth by Orchard, 51, 
54, 55 ; Ford, 144-5 ; Waller, in his '^Baptists not Protest- 
ants," issued by Dr. Graves, utterly riddled — that wish to see 
the utter visionary character of them, let him read Giesler's 
Ecclesiastical History, Vol. i. pp. 254, 258. Mosheim, 100, 
101; Wall, 1, 161, 411, just as samples. These Donatists, 
claimed as Baptists, were the first professed Christians that 
ever brought a religious question before a civil magistrate — 
see Giesler 1, p. 258; Mosheim, 100-1. 

But not only did these parties — so called Baptists — lead the 

way in bringing ecclesiastical matters before Monarchs, Con- 

stantine the Great, but they opposed the Reformation, the 

Anabaptists, with ail of their zeal and frenzy. Benedict, 

quoting Orchard, sa^^s, on p. 81 : 

"He [Luther] and his colleagues had now to dispute their way with 
hosts of Baptists aU over Germany, Saxony, Thuringia, Switzerland, and 
other kingdoms, for several years. Conferences on baptism were held in 
different kingdoms, which continued from 1516 to 1527. The support 
which the Baptists had from Luther's writings, made the reformer's efforts 
of little effect.'^' 

Yes, they managed to nullify a vast amount of good, and 
brought the Reformation to a complete pause, and it has never 
advanced beyond that point. 

Dr. Graves has said " There can be no baptism if the design 



854 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

be perverted." Well, now look at the design Br. Graves sees 
in it and test it by Scripture. 

1. Dr. Graves and the Baptists hold that baptism is designed 
to initiate people into the church. But this (1) is nowhere in 
the Bible; (2) against all that is in the Bible on Baptism ; (3) 
it is against reason; (4) it is utterly against the practice of all 
churches. So you have no baptism by your own showing. 

2. You teach that it is symbolic of the death of Jesus Christ. 
He died on the cross — how can a dip into living water sym- 
bolize such a death ? 

3. They hold it to be symbolic of the burial of Christ, as 
if a dip ioto and out of water could symbolize burial. 

4. They hold that it symbolizes Christ's resurrection. I!!^ever 
did baptism symbolize such a thing, though it had existed 
1500 years. Jouah alone symbolized that, and no o^Aer sign of 
it was to be given. 

5. But the baptism has to come in the line of succession. 
They must be in the regular line. IN'otice that. But from 
TertuUian's day A. D. 190, till the fourth century, all immer- 
sions were by three dips, whose symbolism was the Trinity, and 
nothing else. They held it as initiative, but its symbolism was 
the Trinity, and they tell us so. See Sozomen's full history 
of it. So where is the succession here ? For three hundred 
years there was no baptism according to this position. 

But John ^8 was " unto repentance J^ Is yours so now ? So 
bis was not with the proper symbolism. Do you not see how 
utterly his propositions fail all the way through ? 

Dr. Graves urges that there is one loaf representing Christy 
etc. That is true. So we are ail one in Mm, and have this 
unity of the faith, Eph. iv. 13. We are " one body in Christ^^ 
not in local forms of government and dogmas. See Rom. xii. 
4, 5; I Cor. xii. 12, 13 ; Eph. i. 21, 22 ; ii. 13-22 ; I Cor. x. 17. 

As to Catholics, Episcopalians, Mormons, etc.^ whom he 
named, have they the sante one baptism ? the same government? 

*^owlet us notice how the Bfiptists stand. In England they 
are divided into General Baptists who were the first Baptists 
organized. Then 16.33 the Particular or Calvinistic Baptists 



The Lord's Supper. 855 

started up and made a creed as Calvinistic as ever was known. 
Besides what we have quoted, Cramp, p. 392, tells us again of 
" Spilsbury, the pastor of the first Particular or Calvinistic 
Baptist church." " His signature is fixed to the Confession 
of Faith, published in 1646." Some Baptists, like Ford, 
take up Knollys, and pretend that he figured in a first church 
movement. Benedict says of him, he '* landed and tarried 
awhile in Boston in 1638," p. 369. He had been " ordained 
by the bishop of Peterborough," and was not yet immersed 
in 1636. He was judged '' to be an Antinomian," left there, 
preached '' at Dover" upwards of three years." Because he 
80 preached, Mather denominates him an Anabaptist. As he 
came over an Episcopalian, and Roger Williams could find no 
one to immerse him but one sprinkled, and left Massachusetts 
because of persecutions as well as Clark in the same year of 
1638, how and where did Knollys get immersed ? The plain 
truth is — all these Baptists — for he became one in time — 
Smyth, Helwys, Knollys, Roger Williams, Holliman, Johi^ 
Clark, Olneyj Wickenden, just as now all their greatest lights, 
and as Benedict^ Backus, Randall, Cramp hold, held that 
to ^' restore baptism," they could baptize each other, though 
sprinkled. 

But did you notice that Dr. Graves all the time, so quotes 
the Scriptures as to make Presbyterians, Episcopalians and 
Methodists reprobates f He is compelled to do so to prove 
up his case. Did you notice that all the Scriptures he quotes 
are those describing the vilest wretches, open reprobates — 
fornicators, liars, and all that class of men! Now this is the 
very style that Howell, the Baptist pulpit, and Baptist writers 
in the "Baptist Library" indulge in constantly. It has 
always struck us as astonishing. 

As to the Passover, being a familj^ afiTair, that has no point 
here ; tor Christ, our Passover, is one, the bread is one. We 
are one bread. That was a necessity. The leaven of sin must 
be rooted out, but baptizing is not the means. * That establishes 
us — if sin be rooted out — the heart be pure, there is the 
Scriptural qualification. He says Roger Williams had no 
successor — that his church did not last four months ! Now 



856 Great Carrollton Debate. 

"Chad. Brown was chosen his successor" because he had to 
go to England to procure a charter. Benedict, 450-451; 
Cramp, 461; Backus, I. 102-3, Knowles, professor in l^ewton 
Theological Institution, etc. Wickenden " was ordained by 
Mr. Brown." Benedict, 451. This Brown was baptized by 
Williams — was among the first that joined him. Backus,!. 
102-3. Olney succeeded to the charge, and served till 1682. 
Baptist writers are a little confused as to just when Olney 
took charge — Backus putting him immediately after Williams. 
But were it all a huge Baptist blunder, we know t helps not 
the case, since Olney, Brown, Wickenden, Clark, and all got 
their baptism thence. And as late as 1688, there were only 
thirteen Baptist churches in America, as Benedict, Backus, 
and Cramp show, and in 1740, after one hundred years, there 
were only thirty-seven Baptist churches in America, " with 
less than three thousand members." As for Clark, a sprinkled 
congregation alist, he never organized a church till 1644, as all 
authorities show. This will do now. 

We need not repeat what has been gone over. These are 
the facts in your way. Smith and Helwys founded your Bap- 
tist church. They baptized each other. Spilsbury founded 
the Calvinistic wing. Whence came his baptism, we have no 
light, and Baptists deplore this fact. Roger Williams founded 
those in America — being himself only sprinkled. John Clark 
founded the next at Newport, 1644, being sprinkled himself. 
Knollys tried to get up a Baptist church in sentiment, being 
only " sprinkled in infancy." Such was the rise of Baptists. 
Dr. Graves' wing of the Baptist church is not sixty years old 
yet. Such Baptists as he leads, the world never knew of till 
in this century. Hence — under which kingf is very appropriate 
here. By your position, then, there is not a Baptist in Missouri ! 
IS'one of you have been baptized. You have no right to the 
Lord's Supper. To be consistent, you dare not approach the 
table. If you believed your doctrine really — had substant :d 
confidence in it, you would not approach that table — no^never. 
— {^limeout. 



The Lord's Supper. 857 



DR. GRAVES' THIRD SPEECH. 

Mr. President : — I now resume my argument where I closed 
when I sat down. This question has a twofold aspect. It 
not only may mean an unbaptized Christian, but an unbap- 
tized sinner as welj. 

1. A sinner, a confessedly unregenerate person, young or 
old, cannot be baptized by the authority of Christ, as I have 
demonstrated in the discussion of the last proposition, and shall 
still more fully prove under the fifth, yet to be discussed, and 
therefore such a one cannot scripturally be made a member of 
a Christian Church, and consequently cannot partake of the 
Supper. This seems to me conclusive. 

But an unregenerate person has never by faith, " discerned" 
Christ, nor could he, if baptized and brought into the church 
and to the Supper "discern the Lord's body," and he would 
therefore eat and drink condemnation to his own soul. 

''For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drmketh dam- 
nation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 1 Cor. xi, 29. 

That soul alone, that is "born from above," quickened and 
made alive by the Holy Spirit, that has been brought into a 
peaceful, joyful union with Christ, and made to feel his 
love shed abroad in his heart, can "see," comprehend the 
teachings of the Spirit and the things pertaining to the King- 
dom of God, or the nature of that Kingdom. Christ plainly 
taught this fact to Nicodemus when he said — 

''Except a man be born again, from above, he cannot see i. e. discern 
the Kingdom of God . " 

2. Paul declared the same great, but so much — misunder- 
stood, doctrine to the Church at Corinth. 

" Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the 
wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought : 
but we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, et^ew the hidden w^irfom, 
which God ordained before the world unto our glory ; which none of the 
princes of this world knew : for had they known it, they would not have 
crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written. Eye hath not seen nor 
ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man,, the things which 



858 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

God hath x^repared for them thv.t love him. But God hatli revealed them 
unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep 
t±LLngs of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the 
spirit of man which is in him ? even so the things of God knoweth no 
man, but the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the 
world, but the Spirit w^hich is of God; that we might Ivnow the things 
that are freely given to us of God. Which things also we speak, not in 
the words wliich man's wisdon teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teach- 
eth ; comparing spmtual things with spiritual. But the natural man re- 
ceiveth not the things of the Spirit of God : for they are foolishness unto 
him : neither can he know the^n^ because they are spiritually discerned. 
But he that is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no 
man. For who hath known the mind of the Lord, that he may instruct 
him? But we have the mind of Christ." 1 Cor. ii, 6-16. 

The terms "judgeth" aud "judged" in the fifteenth is the 
same word in the Greek as " discerned " in the fourteenth 
verse, a7iaJcrinei, and should be translated "discerned" to pre- 
serve the sense, i. e., " But he that is spiritual discerneth all 
things, yet he himself is discerned by no man," i. e., merely 
natural man, which the Christian is not. The unbaptized or 
baptized sinner, the unquickened man, cannot discern Christ 
as Savior, in his office as Eedeemer, Priest and King, can- 
not discern the glorious system of salvation by grace, cannot 
discern the visible kingdom, cannot discern His doctrines — 
justification, regeneration, sanctification, adoption, glorifica- 
tion — cannot in any respect discern the Lord's body in the cel- 
ebration of the Supper, and therefore cannot but eat and 
drink condemnation to his own souh And it does seem to me 
that these teachers, professed ministers of Christ, who mislead 
him by their false teaching and influence him to partake, and 
thus profane the Sacred Feast, must bring down the condem- 
nation of Christ upon their own souls. If they themselves 
are indeed " spiritual," must they not see, discern, that the 
unregenerate are wholly disqualified to rightly partake of the 
Supper, and see and know from the plain teachings of the 
Word of God that such characters are positively forbidden to 
participate, and that they themselves are forbidden to invite 
them to partake of it. 

The entire symbolism of the Supper as I have already shown 
forbids their participation, and it can be still more clearly 
shown in my next and last argument. 



The Lord's Supper. 859 

VI. Each local church is made the guardian of the 
PURITY OF the Lord's Supper, and is commanded to permit no 
*'leaven" to be present at its celebration. 

In the church at Corinth was a Christian man, a lately con- 
verted heathen, but incestuous. The sinfulness of this act had 
not duly impressed him. He may have had influential rela- 
tions, or strong personal friends in the church, or otherwise 
he might have been so excellent a man that the church did 
not act upon his case, and Paul used the authority of an 
Apostle, adjudged the case, and in the name of the Lord 
Jesus commanded that such an one should be immediately 
excluded, before another supper should be celebrated, and he 
lays down a general rule for the regulation of the Supper by 
his churches for all future time. 

" Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth 
the whole lump ? Pui'ge out therefore the old leaven, that ye may be a 
new lump, as ye are unleavened. For even Christ our passover is sacrificed 
for us. Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, neither with 
the leaven of malice and wickedness ; but with the unleavened bread of 
gincerity and truth. I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with 
fornicators. Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with 
the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters ; for then must ye needs go 
out of the world. But now I have written unto you not to keep company 
if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idola- 
ter, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner, with such a one no not 
to eat. For what have I to do to judge them also that are without ? do not 
ye-judge them that are within ? But them that are without God judgeth. 
Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person." — I Cor. 5. 

He refers to the Passover as a type of Christ, and incident- 
ally of the Supper as analagous to that memorial feast, ^Aa^i{/us 
like that, must be strictly kept, observed according to the 
expressed law laid down to govern it — that nothing answering 
to "leaven" must be allowed in connection with it. My oppo- 
nent's reference to the Paschal Feast and the analogy he sought 
to institute between it and the Lord's Supper, in my opinion 
was the only semblance of an argument bearing upon this ques- 
tion, that occurred in his hour's speech. If I understand the 
teaching of Paul in the above passage. Eld. Ditzler could have 
chosen no analog}^ more fatal to his individual theory, that the 
unregenerate as well as the regenerate, the unbaptized sinner 



86o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

as well as the baptized saint, is equally entitled to partake of 
the Lord's Supper. 

The Paschal Feast was not a national, nor a social, but a 
family ordinance. It was to be observed by the families of 
Israel, in their generations forever, as a memorial^ not a means 
of grace and personal salvation. The feast was placed under 
the control of the master, the head of the family, to be 
observed, not by laws that seemed good unto him, but by 
those specifically appointed by God. Let this be remembered. 
It was not his supper but the "Lord's Passover," and he as a 
faithful. God-fearing servant must keep it according to the law 
of God, no matter who might call him a selfish bigot and an 
illiberal sectarian. We learn from this — 

1. He could not, without violating the Divine law of the Passover^ 
sjoread the feast in his own house with ojoen doors^ giving no invita- 
tion — i. e., "prescribing no conditions^ but permitting all who deemed 
themselves fit to come and partake. 

He could not alienate the responsibility Jehovah laid upon 
him personally, to see that the feast was observed in its purity 
according to the law of his God. He was to know if there 
was any uncircumcised one in his own family, and he was to 
judge if there was any leaven in his house or brought by any 
member of his own family to the feast. And in like manner he 
must judge if his neighbor's family whom he invited, was 
eircumcised, or was bringing leaven with it to the feast spread 
in his house, and under his supervision. 

This loose and irresponsible way of setting the Lord's Sup- 
per, as it were out upon the comnjon, with the simple an- 
nouncement, "Supper's ready," as the "liberals" of Brooklyn do, 

or preparing it and leavingit open to all without any announce- 
ment whatever, as Mr. Sawtelle, of San Francisco does, is to 
profane the Sacred Feast. 

A Jew, merely because he was a Jew, had no right to go 
into any Jewish house he pleased to celebrate the Passover 
with any other family than his own, except by special invita- 
tion and upon certain divinely fixed conditions, viz: 

2. Each Jew , each family , must possess the self same quoMfications 
thatHhe family possessed lohich invited. 



The Lord's Supper. 86i 

If they lacked any one of thein they could not by God's law 
be invited. If a Jew was uncircumcised he could not eat the 
Passover with his own or any other family without willfully sin- 
ning against God. Now all Pedobaptists known to me, and all 
Methodists, except my opponent, hold and teach that Christi- 
an Baptism comes in the room and place of circumcision — 
this argument is conclusive to them, that no unbaptized per- 
son can partake of the Lord's Supper, but I will not press it 
upon Elder Ditzler because he has surrendered it — that bap- 
tism, comes in the room of circumcision — as he now says the 
Lord's Supper does in place of the Passover — but I do press it 
as conclusive upon all Methodists who endorse their Disci- 
pline and the standard theological exponents of Methodism 
like R. Watson, Wesley, Dr. Summers and Bishop McTyeire — 
and I will press his own position upon him. He affirmed that 
Proselyte Baptism was continuously practiced by the Jews, 
and that Christian Baptism comes in place of it — and is gov- 
erned by the same laws. If so, then as no one or no Gentile 
in particular, could partake of the Passover, unless, he had 
received this baptism, therefore noio no Gentile can partake 
of the Lord's Supper without Christian Baptism. He must 
feel the force of this if he is susceptible of feeling. 

3. But the master of the family was not at liberty to invite whom- 
soever he pleased — or whensoever he felt like it. 

He had no right to any persona] feeling about it, he must 
obey the law ofGod. athis own peril. (1). He could only in- 
vite when his own family could not eat all the Lamb. (2). The 
family invited must not only possess the same qualifications 
of the family inviting, but it must not bring in any leaven. 

JS^ow apply this to the Supper. Each local church is a fami- 
ly, independent of all others, and the Supper is placed under 
its guardianship and it is responsible for its purity. The Sup- 
per does not belong to the church. It has no right to make 
rules governing it. It has no right to invite whom it pleases. 

It is the Lord's Supper, and the church must observe the 
Lord's rules. It must not invite another family though bear- 
ing the name of Baptists or any name, unless possessing the 
same qualifieations with itself. The family invited must bring in 



862 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

no leaven, l^o iinscriptural doctrine, no divisions — no confes- 
sedly unregenerate member, no malice, no bitterness, no here- 
sies, no members walking disorderly in the judgment of the 
inviting church and refuse to be baptized. This is the law of 
Christ. To refuse to be baptized at all as Christ commanded, 
and thus set at naught his authority, would be to walk disor- 
derly — it would be open disobedience and rebellion. 

But he says that my position is setting up men — the church 
in judgment upon men's religious profession. 

All I can or care to say is, the Lord Jesus has placed this 
responsible dut}^ upon his church and she must discharge it, 
no matter w^hat men may say. The command to her is, 
purge out the old leaven. It i^^ her business to judge those, 
and only those under her disciplinary control^ not those with- 
out her jurisdiction. Let me read jigain — 

'' I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators." "Yet 
not altogether with the fornicators of the world, or with the covetous, or 
extortioners, or with idolaters ; for then nnist ye needs go out of the 
world." " But now I have written unto ,you not to keep company, if any 
man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or 
a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such a one no not to eat." 
" For what have I to do to judge them that are without ?" "But them 
that are without God judgeth." 

These Scriptures are thoroughly conclusive that the unbap- 
tized in the estimation of tlie church — for all such are con- 
fessedly without — cannot be invited to the Lord's Supper. 
The indiscriminate invitations now so common, to all members 
of sister churches who may be present to come forw^ard and 
participate, is unscriptural and of evil tendency. The church 
does not know whether those who come forward are bap- 
tized or not — does not know whether they are bringing a 
mass of leaven with them or not — or whether they are "sound 
in the faith and orderly in their Christian walk." They may 
be heterodox — they may be "revelers" and "drunkards" — 
" impostors." What is the church to do ? If she does not know 
that each one is without leaven — she has no authoriy to invite. 
A professed minister may be present, but unless the church 
has good evidence that he is all right, she has no right to invite 
him to preach or assist in administering the Suppe^. 

Let each church limit her Supper as she does her voting — 



The Lord'o Ojiper. 863 

t(j her own members and tliQn no one uill liave any cause to 
complain, and this continual cit of close communion would 
be silenced in one day. If a brother member or minister 
should be present at a communion season, and any one mem- 
ber well acquainted with him, should vouch for his fitness in 
all respects, or a minister so well known to all as to need no 
letter " of commendation,'' the church would be justified in 
inviting him, for she always has more than her own family 
can eat, but in every case let it be done upon a motion, and 
the unanimous vote of all. 

Christ said the children of the world are wiser in their gen- 
eration than the children of light; Do not Masonic and Odd- 
Fellow Lodges act upon these very principles? Can any one 
because be professes to be a Mason enter the Lodge, or pro- 
fessing to be a Master Mason in a Lodge five hundred or a 
thousand miles awav, is he therefore invited to offic'ate with- 
out examination ? And who ever heard a Mason complain 
because he is ever so strictly examined and bis pretensions 
tested ? The officers of a Masonic Lodge very well know 
that it is their duty to knoiv that each one entering to partici- 
pate in its privileges is all right, and can it be less the duty ot 
the Church of Christ audits officers, who are so expressly com- 
manded to let no leaven pollute the feast, no unqualified per- 
son to partake of it. And who in all the world ever heard 
an Odd Fellow complain of and abuse Masons, because they 
were not allow^ed to enter and enjoy the rites and ordinances 
of Masonry. Ko one, and what shadow of reason have Metho- 
dists, Presbyterians and Disciples to complain of Baptists be- 
cause they do not invite them to the ordinances of our churches? 
Why not complain, and call ns "close," illiberal, and narrow 
and unchristian, because we don't invite them to come and vote 
in the election of a pastor or in the discipline of a member? 
They have as much reason in the one case as in the other. 

Eld. Ditzler, to excite your prejudices, says we do not invite 
Pedobaptists because we regard them as reprobates ! Every 
candid man knows it is because we do not believe they are 
Scripturally baptized, and all those, more Christian than par- 
tisan among them, admit that we are consistent in this. 



864 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Finally, This law was strictly observed by all the Apostolic 
Churches, and by all professed Christendom, until the rise of 
Methodism, as all commentators and historians are free to 
declare. To Methodists alone belong the absurdit}- of admin- 
istering The Supper to the confessedly unbaptized, and at the 
door of Methodism alone is laid the fearful sin of administer- 
ing it to the unbaptized sinner to convey to his soul the grace 
of justification, and to renew las soul in the image of God. 
Why does Eld. Ditzler stand here and advocate that the Sup- 
per should be carried out of the Church, and given to the un- 
baptized and unregenerate ? 

For no other reason than to use it as a sacrament of salva- 
tion — a means of salvation, the channel of salvation ! This 
is as gross a perversion of it as that of which the Catholics 
are guilty when the}^ make it a "bloodless sacrifice of Christ." 
It is for this Dr. Ditzler administers it to sinners. He has 
vowed to hold and ten^h that Baptism is a sacrament "by the 
which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, 
but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him." 

In 1840, the Methodist Episcopal Church, issued from their 
ofiice, Fo. 200 Mulberry street, New York, a book entitled 
" Wesleyana," or a complete system of Wesleyan Theology. 
Of course it is endorsed by all the Methodists of our country. 
No one will dispute this. 

Chapter xvi. sec. 1, is devoted to the subject of " Means of 
Grace" Hear this, " The Lord's Supper was ordained by 
God to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, 
or justifying^ or sanctifying grace, according to their several 
necessities. The persons for whom it was ordained are all 
those who know and feel that they w^ant the grace of God, 
either to restrain them from sin, or to show their sins forgiven 
or to renew their souls in the image of God. To come to the 
Supper of the Lord, no fitness is required at the time of com- 
municating, but a sense ot our state of utter sinfulness and 
helplessness; every one who knows he \^ jit for hell being 
just jit to come to Christ in this as well as all other ways of his 
appointment'^ — pp. 283, 284. 

And, on page 258 second paragraph, we have these words : 
" This (the supperj is also an ordinary, stated means of receiv- 



The Lord's Supper. ^ 865 

ing the grace of God.'' * * "Is not the eating of that 
bread and the drinking of that cup, the outward, visible means 
whereby God conveys into our souls that spiritual grace, that 
righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which 
were purchased by the body of Christ once broken, and the 
blood of Christ once shed for us V 

A strong writer, commenting on this, has said : ^'Is not this 
" worshiping the creature above one that is called God?" Is 
not this the same in substance as the worship it receives at the 
hands of the Mother of Harlots and abominations of the earth ? 
Both Catholics and Methodists aim at the same end, the par- 
don of sin. Both believe the rite to be efficacious — both be- 
lieve that sanctity of heart and life are attained through the 
observance of this ceremony " That " the complete system of 
Weslej^an Theology" holds this ceremony as a converting in- 
strument in the hands of the clergy is evident from its own 
language on page 284. " In latter times many have affirmed 
that the Lord's Supper is not a converting ordinance, * * * 
The fixlsehood of this objection, appears both from Scripture 
precept and example." 

We can see from this why Methodist Presiding Elders, in- 
vite and urge sinners all over this land to come and partake 
of their Supper and tell them that if tliey were ever converted, 
it was when as guilty sinners they were partaking of it. 
Fearful, pernicious teaching ! ! Is it any wonder that intelli- 
gent Baptists cannot commujie with Methodists? 

It is true as charged that Wesleyan Methodists one and 
all, are holding this figment of popery, which though it does 
not teach the transubsta itiation of the accidents of bread and 
wine into the real body of Christ, it holds that it transubstan- 
tiates the sinner into a saint. So much are they wedded to 
sense, that what God has reserved as His own prerogative, a 
little piece of bread and sip of wine, when consecrated by the 
prayers of a Presiding Elder, are so magnified as to usurp the 
power to " convert the soul,'' which embraces the whole process 
of regeneration and sanctification. I would as soon partake 
of the idolatrous mass of* the Catholics! How can Presby- 
terians, how can Disciples eat the supper with Methodists ? 
54 



S66 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Do they believe this? I will not say it. How ean Method- 
ists oppose the Baptism of the Disciples, for the remission of 
sins, when they themselves practically claim for their own 
" sacraments" a power of conveying salvation to the souls of 
the most sinful? 



The Lord's Supper. 867 



DR. DITZLER'S THIRD REPLY. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — Let ur not forget the issue be* 
fore us. It is not onlj- whether a regenerate soul and a bap- 
tized regenerate believer — one of God's children, has a right to 
his Lord and Master's table through Christ or not, but whether 
it is suspended 1. upon impossible conditions, 2. Absurd con- 
ditions, 3. Monstrous and intolerent conditions. 

From Dr. Graves' stand-point we have shown that no one, 
no Baptist, no person on earth can take the Lord's Supper^ 
"We quoted the Doctor, The Texas Baptist Pulpit, etc., and Ford, 
J. L. Waller of Kentucky, Orchard, and all agree here, that 
to be a baptized person the following conditions must hokl 
good in every case. 1. The party baptized must be dipped, 
*' immersed." 2. He must be regenerated before he is dipped, 
else it is not baptism, any more than if you dipped a rock or 
a cat. 3. The party must be baptized for the right purpose. 
4. He must be baptized with the proper symbolism. 5. It 
must be by the proper administrator, by one who represents 
such a state of things in every link in the chain, in every per- 
son baptized who is a link in the chain of the tens of thous- 
ands between him and the apostolic age! If the man who 
baptized you has not all five of these things holding good in 
bis case, he is not a proper, not a legitimate administrator. 
And so of his baptizer, and his on, on till the apostolic age. 
What a monstrous mass of hideous absurdities! 

Let us test just one of these five absurdities. He must be 
baptized with the right symbolism. If he does not mean to rep- 
resent all that baptism symbolized, or the party baptizing him 
rather, it is not baptism! IN'ow Baptists make baptism sym- 
bolize from five to eight or nine things — regeneration, death 
to sin, purity of life, sign of death, burial, resurrection, and 
make it initiatory into the church, etc., etc. Now how on 
earth can they presume that such were the views of every 
baptism that stands between them and eighteen hundred 



868 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

years ago? How startling the absurdity ! ! It implies, as we 
said, 1 Infallibility of judgment in the administrator to fail 
of error in judging whether the man's heart was in every bap- 
tism since apostolic days in that line regenerate or not. 2. 
Omniscience — to know all hearts. 3. Ubiquity or omnipres- 
ence — in all the line of baptisms down. This throws the claim 
of popes and councils into contempt. It overshadows all the 
infallibility of the Vatican, and perfectly dwarfs the claims of 
Pius the Mnth. 

^tsTow let us examine a little further into American Baptist 
histor3\ It is a fact that a party of men, some twelve in num- 
ber, went to Rhode Island, settled on a spot they called Prov- 
idence, ^ot one ol them had been baptized by immersion. 
They had all been sprinkled. I^^ow Benedict, Backus, Cramp, 
all standard Baptist historians, tell us that Holliman baptized 
Williams, then Williams baptized the eleven, and they con- 
stituted the first Baptist church in America. Thos. Olney is 
one of their party, and Wm. Wickenden soon became an- 
other. Backus, 1, 102, Benedict 450. These two became 
leading Baptist ministers. Another celebrated Baptist min- 
ister is Wm. Yaugn, who organized the second church at 
l^ewport, and became a pastor to it, Benedict, 467. But he 
was baptized by Wickenden, whose baptism was from Wil- 
liams. 

ISTow in view of these facts^ all from the highest Baptist 
standards in America, all confirmed by all the standard histo- 
rians of our country, w^hat becomes of this myth about suc- 
cession? Does Dr. Graves complain of my charges as to the 
reliability of their writers on history w^hen treating on the 
dogmas and practices that separate us and them? Why, 
who throws more discredit on their standard and best histo- 
rians, than he. Ford and their kind. They do not allow that 
the very men who were selected to write Baptist history be- 
cause of their advantages, opportunities and contiguity to the 
churches and records, are at all trustworthy on the very things 
of all else they were best qualified to write on, and where 
they had no motive to suppress or depart from the truth. 

But these Baptist standards all put it in evidence that bap- 



The Lord's Supper. 869 

tisni was a deplorable failure till it was rescued and saved by 
Methodism. Drs. Jeter, Cramp, Backus, Benedict, all prove 
that. Backus proves 1,152, that up to 1741 — after one hun- 
dred years' existence and over, there were only nine Baptist 
churches in Massachusetts, " and none in M'ew Hampshire and 
Vermont"— no, nor in Georgia, I^orth Carolina, 'New York, 
or Maryland. The first in Vermont was in 1768, the second 
in 1773. 

Here then we see their succession theories utterly ground to 
powder in the house of its own ablest historians. We mean 
what we say when we assert that all the ablest Baptist histo- 
rians — -all the learned Baptists of JSTew England and I^ew 
York do utterly repudiate this myth, as well as those of Vir- 
ginia and Pennsylvania. It is a whim of the imagination, a 
film of the blinded eyes of prejudice, a dream of intolerance, 
born of bigotry, and palmed off upon the unwary and unin- 
formed. 

The Doctor thinks Judas did not take the supper. Mark 
thus relates it, ch. xiv, 13-20, "And as they sat and did eat, 
Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, one of you which eateth 
with me shall betray me. And he answered, it is one of the 
twelve that dippeth with me in the dish, and as they (the 
twelve) did eat, Jesus took bread and. blessed and brake it, 
and gave to them, and said. Take, eat; this is my body. And 
he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to 
them ; and they all drank of it." — 23d verse. So Luke xxvii, 
17-21. So it is certain Judas partook of it. Christ left him 
io his own responsibility in the premises. 

But we demand to know if you have any right to set this 
ordinance above others, or this particular command above other 
commands of Jesus Christ. He commands all our duties. 
He commands honesty, charity, purity, prayer, duty as parents^ 
as children, neighbors. Are any of these less important than 
the Supper — purely a memorial outward, though solemn and 
beautiful service? Is it more imperatitive than paying one's 
-debts, or bringing up our children in the nurture of the 
Lord? l!Tow let me ask, do you debar people from the com- 
munion because of failure to obey these commands? Are all 



870 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Baptists kept away for want of observing these all-important 
commands of the Master? Alas! no. Here, then, you are 
attaching undue value to one command over other equally 
vital ones, which is wrong. 

You act on the assumption that the apostles at once bap- 
tized all their converts. This is so far from correct that there 
is no proof that the twelve ever baptized anyboby in all their 
lives. It is evident from the records that they did not per- 
sonally baptize, and Paul only baptized a few persons, 1 Cor. 
i, 15-17. See Acts x, 44-47, Peter " commanded them to be 
baptized.'^ Were these parties now to wait for baptism be- 
fore they could take the supper? There is nothing in bap- 
tism, its nature, object or " sj^mbolism " that necessitates it« 
AVe do hope to see this baptismal question put upon its true 
and Bible merits, and end this endless war on it. It has been 
made to be everything by turns. 'No wonder people are con- 
fused over it. We are told by the old dark-agists that it is a 
door, a seal of the covenant, a sign of regeneration, a s^^mbol 
of death, burial, resurrection, an initiatory rite, entrance into 
the church, a pledge of pardon, remission of sins — yea, a God 
indeed, they had as well say. We have a supreme disgust for 
the silly trash that old sleepers have spun out on this ordi- 
nance, and repeated in all the land by the Kip Van Winkles 
of theolocrv. 

Of 

The Doctor thinks I am out of order by going Into an ex- 
posure of his absurdities. He gives us his position. We 
examine it, test his position, and how can it be out of order? 
But the Doctor has forgotten how he quoted creeds, confes- 
sions and prayer-books — rituals, tracts, theological text-books 
from Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Methodists when on 
Infant Baptism. What had they to do with the scripturalness 
of Infant Baptism? Toothing at all. But his position on 
what constitutes valid baptism, is right to the point here. 
Yet he pretends that to show what Baptists mean by baptism 
is out of order ! 

Kow it is well known that they pretend it is not close com- 
munion, but close baptism — we demand immersion. Our 
consciences are very tender here^ and yoa must bear that in 



The Lord's Supper. 871 

mind. But "Disciples" are immersed. Ah! you are not 
immersed for the right purpose, etc., nor by a constituted 
authority ! Ah, yes ! Well there is a good man who was 
immersed by a regular Baptist preacher, but he has united 
with the Methodists now, and yet presents his claim for the 
emblems. Do you give him the Supper? [N'o, no! Why? 
Is he not. one you immersed? Yes. Is he not a pious, ex- 
cellent man? Yes. Why dio yon refuse him the emblems? 
That tells the story. It is not close baptism, but close 
bigotey!! 

What if Wall did write to prove immersion in every age — 
he could not do it till the close of the second century and 
dawn of the third, when it was a superstitious, trine immer- 
sion. He proved aspersion in the Apostolic age — that is bet- 
tjer. As to authorities, none of them take Dr. Graves' view. 
They all reject his theory. By his position, not one of all the 
authorities he quotes is correct. 

We call your attention to the fact that the founders of the 
Baptist church wholly rejected such a position as the Doctor 
holds. Smyth, Helwys, and all their leaders in England — 
Williams, Clark, Olney, Backus, all held differently. It is a 
little remarkable, also, that the three greatest lights the Baptists 
ever have produced — Bunyan, Hall, Spurgeon — were all open 
communionists, and Spurgeon has said the severest, the most 
cutting things against it that ever was said by any one, I 
reckon. It makes the Christian system far more illiberal 
than the Jewish church in its most ritualistic times. This 
we elaborated before. 

They have relied much on the words of the commission — 
"baptize, teaching them to observe all things." That is right ; 
but what has it to do with what a regenerate soul may do before 
baptism ? Teach them to observe all things surely does not mean 
that the party could not do duty and observe a command of 
Jesus before the minister chose to baptize him. 

The very fact that the Twelve observed it before bap- 
tism was instituted as an established rite of the church or 
commanded, or named, and the absence of any proof that they 
had been baptized at all, themselves, settles that point, But 



872 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

it is not simply baptism they interpose, but the Jive elements 
that must enter into baptism to make it baptism at all — there 
is the ten-fold evil the Doctor has to grapple with, but utterly 
ignores. 

Dr. Graves winces under our rebuke for so quoting and 
applying scripture, as to make Presbyterians, Disciples and 
Methodists wicked reprobates. 

Dr. Graves — I deny such intention. I had no such inten- 
tion whatever. 

Dr. Ditzler — ISTo, I have no idea he meant it that w^ay — 
none whatever. But they have gotten into such a habit of 
looking wholly one sided at this question, that they do not 
notice the weakness and very oflensive nature of their appli- 
cations of Scripture. The Baptist Pulpit in my hand does 
the same thing — quoting those Scriptures that advise us to 
keep aloof from the basest of characters to show why they 
won't hold communion with other churches. 

He claims great things for Baptists on Liberty, and tells of 
the commission of Holland and what they reported, and this 
is paraded as Baptist glory. N"ow, 1. It was not Baptists at 
ally but Anabaptists they tell us of. Ko Baptist existed earlier 
than 1606 to 1608 on this earth, as we have shown from their 
own record. 

2. By Anabaptists they do not mean those of the kind exist- 
ing in Germany, whom all Europe detested. 

3. They simply mean those various sects who repeatedly 
broke off from Rome and rebaptized, not on account of mode, 
nor infant baptism, since all of them baptized infants, save 
such as repudiated baptism altogether — the Manich8eans,.etc. 

4. In the next place Benedict puts it in evidence that but 
for the restraining power of the civil Magistrates, the Baptists 
— the first Baptists would have virtually exterminated ea-ch 
other in Holland and England. And hardly were they set- 
tled in America than they began war on each other over ques- 
tions of psalmody, elders, etc. 

5. Finally it was in Holland where the noble Arminius, 
Keplar and others had taught liberty that mainly Williams, 



The Lord's Supper. 873 

Locke and others caught all the ideas thej had on toleration 
and liberty. In blood and sufferings Holland had worked out 
that question before there was a Baptist on earth. Baptists 
never had the upper hand or power to persecute in any land, 
and hence are yet to be tried. The Anabaptists showed their 
hand the moment they got power, even though only for a day. 
And the readiness with which they vilify, asperse and traduce 
those who differ trom them, shows their capacity if they had 
the power. 

They poured abuse on Bunyan in torrents because an open 
.communionist. He was denounced as "Anti-Christ," "liar," 
" devil," etc., by his own brethren. These tempers tell too 
plainly what they would do had they the power. 

But Dr. Graves tried to make a point by the fact that no 
one but a member of the family could take the Paschal Feast. 
Grant it, what help does it afford to his cause ? It is on my 
side — supports our position. The Church as a whole is God's 
FAMILY. " The whole familv in heaven and earth " is of Him, 
and " one br^ad and one body." Eph. iii, 13, 14 ; 1 Cor. x, 
16, 17; Tim. iii, 15. All who have the Spirit of Christ 
are " adopted " into his family, household, church. Rom. viii, 
14-17; Eph. ii, 19-22; 1 Cor. xii, 13, etc. Hence all his 
adopted, regenerated children are entitled to the Supper. 
Hence while this fact gives no support to your cause, and a 
congregation, as such, is not equivalent to a family, nor so put 
in the l^ew Testament, yet our position is supported by it— 
his church is his family. Hence all his church spiritual that 
can do this in remembrance of Him, is entitled to the ordi- 
nance. — [ Time out. 



874 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FOURTH SPEECH. 

Mr. President: — I came here to discuss the question you 
aiiiiounced, — to affirm and to prove by God's Word, and the 
concurrent voice of the Christian world, and the practice of 
the church of God in all ages — that "Christian baptism is pre- 
requisite to the Lord's Supper." J^or can I be turned again, 
for one moment, aside to notice his persistent misstatement of 
the faith and perversion and travesty of the history of Bap- 
tists, until I have put in all my arguments and proofs, and 
then if time should permit, I will employ it in exposing his 
unwarranted statements which he designedly introduces here, 
to excite the prejudice of his partizans and the uninformed 
and unthinking, against me and my people. 

I now add to my Scripture arguments and proof, the testi- 
mony of the highest authorities of the Methodist Church first ; 
and then, that of the representative writers of all denomi- 
nations. 

1st. What are the teachings of the M. E. Church Standards ? 

1. Methodist Discipline, Art. xiii. " The visible cliurch of Christ 
*■ "-•■ in which the Sacraments [baptism, and the Lord's Supper] are 

duly administered." That none can, according to its Ritual, "be admitted 
to its communion" without baptism. See Dis. Chap. 33, Sec. 4. 

2. Dr. Adam CliArk (Methodist), in his "Discourse on the Eucharist," 
remarks : "As no person could partake of the Paschal lamb before he was 
circumcised (Exod. xiii. 43-48), so, among the early followers of God, no 
person was permitted to come to the Eucharist till he had been baptized.^'' 
{See Eucharist, p. 46.) 

3. Richard Watson says : "It is obligatory on all who are convinced 
of the truth ofOhrstianity to be baptized ; m^d upon those thus baptized, fre- 
quently to partake of the Lord's Supper." 

He clearly places baptism before the Supper. 

Dr. G. F. Hibbard, in his work on Baptism, (which, in 1852, 
was made, by the General Conference, the text book for all 
theological students, and is I think to-day,) says : 

"It is certain that baptism is enjoined as i\ie first public duty after disci- 
pleship. . , . The very position, therefore, that baptism is made to 



The Lord's Supper. 875 

occupy in relation to a course of Christian duty, namely, at the commence- 
ment^ sufficiently establishes the conclusion that the ordinance of the Supper^ 
and all other observances which have an exclusive reference to the 
Christian profession, must come in as subsequent duties, .... And 
thus we hold that Christ enjoined the order^ as well as the duties them- 
selves; and in this order of Christ, baptism precedes communion at the 
Lord's table." (Hibbard on Baptism, part 2, p. 177.) 

"It will be more satisfactory to inquire. How the Apostles understood 
the commission with respect to the relative order of the Christian institutes ? 
The argument from apostolic precedent is undeniably important. They 
were commissioned to teach the converted nations ' to observe ad things 
whatsoever ' Christ had commanded. This was the extent, and this the 
limit of their authority. . . What, then, did the Apostles teach and 
practice with respect to the tim^, and relative o-^-der of baptism ? On the 
day of Pentecost, when the people inquired of the Apostles : ' Men and 
brethren, what shall we do ? Peter answered, Repew and he baptized every 
one of you in the name of Jesus Christ^^ etc. (Acts ii. 38.) Luke sums up 
the glorious results of that memorable day thus : ' Then they that gladly 
received his word were baptized ; and the same day tliere were added unto 
them about three thousand souls And they continued steadfastly in the 
Apostles' doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread^ and in prayers.' 
(Acts ii. 41, 42.) This was the first occasion on which the Apostles had 
been called upon to exercise their high commission. And here, indeed, 
we are called upon to notice particularly the order in which they enforced 
the divine precepts. Upon their anxious hearers they enjoined, first, re- 
pentance; then baptism; then the duty of church membership; and then 
'breaking of bread,' or the Lord's Supper. Comparing the order here 
observed with the order of the words of the commission, we are struck 
with admiration at the prompt fidelity of the Apostles." (Hibbard on 
Baptism, part 2, pp. 176-179). 

Again : For example, Dr. Hibbakd (Methodist) says : " The concurrent 
voice of the Christian world excludes an unbaptized person from fellow- 
whip in the visible Church of God.'' *' ■■- 

"It is but just to remark, that in one ^vinciple the Baptist and Pedobap- 
tist churches agree. They both agree in rejecting from communion at the 
table of the Lord, and in denying the rights of church fellowship to all who 
have not been baptized. Valid baptism they (the Ba^Dtists) consider as esse?j- 
2fia^ to constitute visible church membership. This <oe (Pedobaptists) aho 
hold. The only question, then, that here divides us is : ' What is essen- 
tial TO VALID BAPTISM?' " (Hibbard on Bap., part 2, p. 174.) 

"Baptism, from its very nature, stands at the opening of the visible 
career. It is a badge of the Christian profession — the seal of the Gospel 
covenant — th^- ordinance of admission into the visible Church of Christ. Previ- 
ously to baptism, the individual has no rights in the visible Church. . . . 
No society of Christians would receive an unbaptized person into their 
community, and tender to him the privileges of their body. So far as 
proper chiu-ch rights and privileges are concerned, he is regarded in tl>^ 
same light as any unconverted man. 



876 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

Speaking of Dr. Kendrick's argument for baptism preceding the Sup- 
per the Western Christian Advocate (Meth). of January 11, 1871, says : 
" ZS'or do we doubt that the legitimate order of the sacraments [baptism, 
is as our contemporary contends. Baptism very properly comes before 
the Lord's Supper." 

You see that Elder Ditzler stands here to " inveio^h" ao:ainst 
the teachings of the Discipline and the highest recognized 
standards of his own church, and I call upon his Conference 
to impeach him — or revise or expurgate its standards. 

Let us now hear the testimony of the representative wri- 
ters of other denominations. 

''Lord Chajxcellge TCtxq, a distinguished Episcopahan. in his 
"Inje^izry," part 2, p. 44, says, "Baptism was always precedent to the 
Lord's Supper ; and none were ever admitted to receive the eucharist tni 
they were baptized. Tliis is so obvious to every man that it needs no 
proof." 

Says Vincent L. ^Milner : "In reqmring baptism and church fellowship 
among these qualiflcations, they [Baptists] agree with almost all Chris- 
tians in eveiy age and countn,\ If their Atiews of baptism are correct, 
they are bound to apply them imperatively to all who apply for admission 
to communion. ' ' Speaking of baptism as a non-prerequisite to the Supper, 
the Churehman says : "We need not say to churchmen that this is a view 
which is utterly repugnant to the whole teaching of the chm'ch in every 
age, and to the whole course of history." Says Dr. Man ton : "Xone but 
baptized persons have a right to the Lord's Supper.'' — (Supplement to 
Morning Exercises, p. 199.; 

Pkof. Gakdxee says: "So all denominations beheve and teach at 
the present day. Hence it is that no chtnch of any denomination, except 
[the Methodists] a few Free Commtirion Baxotists, will admit any person, 
however pious, to its communion table, unless he has been hap>tized in some 
way. This is the gTeat reason why the advocates of "open communion'' 
wittihold the elements from their oicn candidaiesfor baptism, and from the 
pious Quakers, who deny aU water baptism.'' Gardner on Com. p. 50. 

Robebt TTatj,, the celebrated leader of Free Communion Baptists in 
England, says: "Let it be admitted," as it unquestionably is by all other 
mixed communionists, " that baptism is, under all circumstances, a neces- 
sary condition of church fellowship, and it is iMPOSSiBiiE for the Baptists 
to act otherwise;" i. e., than to restrict their commtmion at the Lord's 
Table to their own churches. " The recollection of this may suffice to rebut 
tiie ridicule and silence the clamor of those who so loudly condemn the 
Baptists for a proceeding which, were they (]Mixed Communionists) but 
to change their opinion on the subject of baptism, their own principles 
would compel them to adopt. They both concur in a com-inon principle 
(namely, that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord's Supper), from which 
the practice {of restricted commimion), deemed so offensive, is the necessary 
result" (HaU's Works, vol. 2, p. 213.) 



The Lord's Supper. 877 

Here is the testimony of the -Presbyterians — 
''Dr. Edward D. Griffin (Presbyterian), late President of Willianas 
College, in his celebrated ' Letter on Communion at the Lord's Table, 
addressed to a member of a Baptist Church,' in 1829, remarks : 'That we 
ought not to commune with those who are not baptized, and of course 
are not church members, even if we regard them as Christians. ' " See 
Fuller on Communion, p. 270.) 

Dr. John Dick (Presbyterian), in maintaining that " baptism is requi- 
site to entitle a person to a seat at the table of the Lord," says : " I do not 
know that this was ever called in question till lately, that a controversy 
has arisen among the English Baptists, whether persons of other Christian 
denominations may not be occasionally admitted to the holy communion 
•with them ; and it became necessary for those who adopted the affirmative 
to maintain tliat baptism is not a previous condition. This assertion 
arose out of their peculiar system, which denies the validity of infant 
baptism. But to every man who contents himself with a plain view of 
the subject, and has no purpose to serve by subtleties and refinements, it 
will appear that baptism is as much the initiating ordinance of the Chris- 
tian as circumcision was of the Jewish dispensation. An uncircumcised 
man was not permitted to eat the Passover, and an unbaptized man 
should not be permitted to partake of the Eucharist." (Dick's Theology, 
Lect. 92, p. 494.) 

The American Presbyterian, a standard church paper: 
Open communion is an absurdity when it means communion with the 
unbaptized. I would not for a moment consider a proposition to admit an 
unbajjtized person to the communion ; and can I ask a Baptist so to stultify 
himself, and ignore his own doctrine, as to invite me to commune with 
him while he believes I am unbaptized ? I want no sham union and no 
sham unity, and if I held the Baptist notion about immersion I would no 
more receive a Presbyterian to the communion than I now would receive 
a Quaker. Let us have unity, indeed, but not at the expense of principle, 
and let us not ask the Baptist to ignore or to be inconsistent with his own 
doctrine. Let us not either make an outcry at his close communion, 
which is but faithfulness to principle, until we are prepared to be open 
communionists ourselves, from which stupidity may we be forever pre- 
served. 

The Interior, a representative Presbyterian paper of high 
merit, saj-s : 

"We agree with them (Baptists) in saying that unbaptized persons should 
not partake of the Lord's Supper." Again, "Close communion, in 
our judgment, is a more defensible position than open communion, which 
is justified on the ground that baptism is not prerequisite to partaking of 
the Lord's Supper." 

Dr. Doddridge, a learned and pious Independent Pedobap- 
tist, remarks : 
"It is certain that as far as our knowledge of primitive antiquity 



878 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

extends, no u hnpth-d parson over receivod the Lord's Supper. How ex- 
cellent soever any man's character is, he must be baptized before he can be 
looked upon as completely a member of the Church of Christ." (Dod- 
dridge's Miscellaneous Works, p. 510.) 

Here is what Oongregationalists testify 

Dk. Timothy D wight (Congregationalist), late president of "Yale 
College, " affirms : "It is an mrfisjoew.sa&^e qualification for this ordinance 
that the candidate for communion be a member of the visible Church of 
Christ in full standing. By this I intend that he should be a person of 
piety; that he should have made a public profession of reUgion ; and that he 
should have been baptized.'''' (Dwight's Theology, vol. 4, p. 365.) 

"And Dr. Nathaniel Emmons (Congregationalist) observes: 'As to 
the Gospel Church, it is plain that it was composed of none but visible 
saints. No other but baptized persons were admitted to communion ; and 
no adult persons but such as professed repentance and faith, were admitted 
to baptism, which shows that they were visible saints." (See Platforms, 
page 2.) 

I quote from the Independent., under a previous editorial 
management, when it was a recognized mouthpiece of Con- 
gregationalism. Speaking of the Baptist principle of restrict- 
ed communion, the following were its words: 

" We do not see how their principle differs from that commonly ad- 
mitted and estabhshed in Presbyterian and Congregational churches." 

Here is the teaching of A. Campbell, the founder of the 
sect known as Campbellites or Disciples, and of their standard 
papers : 

Alex. Campbell: "But I object to making it a rule, in any case, to 
receive unimmersed persons to church ordinances : 1st. Because it is 
nowhere commanded. 2d. Because it is nowhere precedented in the New 
Testament. 8d. Because it necessarily corrupts the simplicity and uni- 
formity of the whole genius of the New Testament. 4th. Because it not 
only deranges the order of the kingdom, but makes void one of the niost 
important institutions given to man. It necessarily makes immersion of 
non-eflfect. 5th. Because in making a canon to dispense with a divine 
institution of momentary import, they who do so assume the very same 
dispensing power which issued in that tremendous apostasy which we and 
all Christians are laboring to destroy. If a Christian community puts in- 
to its magna charta, covenant, or constitution, an assumption to dispense 
with an institution of the Great King, who can tell whire this power of 
i^ranting license to itself may terminate?" — {Christian Baptist^ vol. vi, 
answer to query 3.) 

The American Christian Review says : "Some of the teachers we refer to 
are not satisfied it is wrong to commune with the unimmersed. . . . 
If Pedobaptists are in the Kingdom of Christ, let us say nothing more 
about sprinkling, nor against any other innovation. If we invite them 



The Lord's Supper. 879 

to commune with ir;, r.5 CGrt?iTi wisliy-washy preachers have done, why 
then to be consistent let us sprinlvle as others do; if we are 'sincere and 
conscientious,' that tills the bill, we are Christians together. Let us drop 
our plea and all sail in the same boat. Is any true Disciple of Christ 
ready for a reconciliation as humiliating as that ? If so, don't stand on 
the order of your going, but go at once. We say all this at the risk of 
being called a bigot, an exclusionist, a close-communionist. . . . There 
is as much authority for communing with Free Masons, and Odd Fel- 
lows, and Good Templars, as with any school of Pedobaptists if we can 
commune with a people who reject one of the commands of Jesus Christ, 
and with those who substitute tradition for the Bible ; because are not aU 
these 'sincere and conscientious?' " 

The Apostolic Times, of February 29, 1872, says : " I do not beheve that 
the unimmersed can set the Lord's table ; at least, I do not believe they 
do it. Hence with me, a table set by them is not the Lord's table ; and 
I would not eat at it. . . . From the preceding it would appear that 
I am a close communionist. This I certainly am, in the severest, true 
sense of the term." 

In the Christian Quarterly for Janu-ery, 1875, Robert Graham, President 
of Hocker Female College says : "In regard to what is called open or 
close communion the position of the Disciples is peculiar. Pedobaptist 
churches are generally open or free communionists. This they can be in 
haiTnony with their principles. All churches agree that baptism is a pre- 
requisite to communion at the table of the Lord ; and as Pedobaptists 
accept sprinkling, and pouring, and immersion as vaUd forms of baptism, 
they can receive at the table of the Lord any one who has been baptized, 
and is living a Godly life. Baptists, however, do not allow anything to 
be baptism but the immersion of a believer ; and in this the Disciples are 
in perfect agreement with them ; hence, neither of the churches can con- 
sistently advocate open communion." 

I close my proof with the statement of Dr. Wall, Episcopa- 
lian historian, one of Elder Ditzler's principal witnesses 
against Baptists. He will not dispute his word now: 

" No church ever gave the communion to any person before they were 
baptized. Among all the absurdities that ever was held, none ever main- 
•tained that any person should partake of the communion before he was 
baptized." — Hist. Inf. Bap. Part ii, ch. ix. 

I^eander, Mosheim and SchafF, Luther and Historians agree 
m saying that in all antiquity no orthodox church was ever 
heard of that gave the communion except to the baptized. 

I appeal then to the Christian candor of all men who hear 
me to say if Baptists deserve to be called bigots, illiberal, sec- 
tarian, or actuated by unchristian principles and feeling, because 
they hold and teach and make by their practice baptism a prere- 
quisite to communion f And I appeal once more to every Ameri- 



88o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

can freeman, who rejoices in the inestimable birthright of relig- 
ious freedom, if Baptists have not the right to believe^ and in 
the exercise of their own ecclesiastical affairs, to require all who 
participate in the supper with them in their churches, to be 
scripturally baptized, as they themselves have been ? Has any 
living man, or body of men, or angel the right to demand that 
we shall throw open our churches and communion-tables to 
all indiscriminately, to the unbaptized sinner as well as the un- 
baptized saint ? Would it be any thing else than the spirit 
of despotism, and persecution, to say to us that our couscien- 
tious convictions shall not be respected by Pedobaptists, and 
while they claim the right to enjoy their religious rights, and 
admit to their churches and tables whom they please, yet we 
Baptists shall not be permitted to do so? Eead the follow- 
ing from the pen of Albert Barnes, the Presbyterian Commen- 
tator, and no longer doubt for one moment, had he but the 
power, he would inaugurate as severe persecutions against us 
as marked the darkest days of the papacy, or as breathe in the 
speeches tha^ you have heard since this question was opened. 

Dr. Bahnes says: "We claim and demand of the Baptists, that they 
shall not merely recognize the minislry of other denominations, but their 
membership also; that while, if they prefer it, they may continue the prac- 
tice of immersion in baptism as a part of their Christian liberty, they shall 
concede the same liberty to others, (?'. e., to practice adult and infant 
f<p7nnkling ov pouring for baptism ;) and while they expect that their acts of 
baptism shall be recognized by others as valid they shall not offer an 
affront to the Christian world by re-baptizing all who enter their commun- 
ion, or by excluding from their communion all who have not been subjected 
to the rite of immersion. And we claim and demand of the Baptist 
churches that they shall recognize the members of other churches as 
members of the Church of Christ. We do not ask this as a boon, we 
claim it as a right.'''' (See Barnes on Exclusivism, pp. 66 and 74.) 

I would say to him and those who endorse such demands 
and such sentiments, that every true Baptist on this Continent 
will shed his last drop of blood, or burn at the stake, before 
they will recognize sprinkling or pouring for Christian bap- 
tism, or unconscious infants as scriptural subjects. — \_liw.eout 



The Lord's Supper. 88i 



DR. DITZLER'S FOURTH REPLY. 

« 

G]^iNTLEMBN MODERATORS : — We woiider if Dr. Graves was 
much scared when the good and pious Barnes used the word 
'^ shall not.'' We hope he will survive the innocent remark 
of Dr. Barnes which he interpreted to mean fire and sword 
against Baptists. 

Now after all his glorification of his people, the leading sect 
that he. Ford, Orchard, Waller and all set down as a shining 
and most conspicuous link in the mystic chain — the Donatists 
of the third and fourth centuries, are the first denomina- 
tion in Christendom that ever brought their quarrel or an 
ecclesiastical question before a civil tribunal — before a civil 
magistrate. They had appealed to the ecclesiastical tribunal 
— were defeated — yea, a second time, then A. D, 311 to 316, 
brought it before Constantine the Great, yet would not abide 
any of the decisions after so appealing. 

The Doctor tells us that we administer baptism for regen- 
erating the parties! Yea, as conveying, justifying — saving 
grace. But as neither Dr. Graves, nor any Baptist living be- 
lieves it, and all of them know it is a slander and abuse, it 
needs no attention. 

But he says we hold it to be a partaking of the body of 
Christ. Kow let us again expose the utter weakness and as- 
tonishing blindness of such charges. Because our Discipline 
quotes the very language of Christ clearly used by him in a 
spiritual sense, and so declared by Wesley, Clarke and Wat- 
son — by all Protestant writers of note — where he tells us, 
John vi. 51, " except we eat his flesh and drink his blood" &c, — 
and Paul, 1 Cor. x. 16. "For we are all partakers of that one 
bread" — Christ. Now all he says against our Kitual there is 
still more severe against both Christ and Paul. All right- 
minded men know that by such language we mean just what 
our Ritual explains it to be in the same pages — "feed on him 
BY FAITH in your hearts.'' So the Hebrews fed on him — ^1 
55 



882 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Cor. X. 3, often quoted — " did all eat the spiritual meat" — 
Christ. Yet now of this he makes such an ado ! Does it not 
show a depth of prejudice and blinding influences on our op- 
ponent that utterly disqualify him to interpret his oppenents 
fairly? Hence, from the above view these writers look on 
the Lord's Supper as we do on prayer, preaching, singing, as 
an aid or means of grace b}^ which our zeal, love and fa^th are 
increased. Yet he objects to this ! Does he not believe in 
the same? Of course he does. 

After telling us all he did, perverting all we hold, he then 
says "That is the reason why sinners are invited to the com- 
munion !" If he knows anything of our laws, rules or prac- 
tice, he knows that is a gross perversion, and that no such thing 
ever is done by us. I never heard of such a thing, nor any 
Presiding Elder or preacher in this house. Here are leading 
ministers of the M. E. Church, and M. E. Church, South — 
not one of them ever heard of such a thing. But our invita- 
tion is in print — we ahoays read it. 

" Ye that do truly and earnestly repent of your sins and are in love and 
charity with your neighbors, and intend to lead a new life, following the 
commandments, draw near by faith,^^ etc. 

He then makes us say, " pardon of sin through baptism." 
That is the wa}' they quote history, lexicons, etc. 

But to make bad worse, he tells us that in the west '^ all 
sinners are invited to the Supper as a converting means — 
transubstantiating sinners into saints." 

We would pay no attention to such vicious and wild decla- 
mation, but it affords still additional proof be^^ond all question, 
(1) of the utter recklessness of our enemies — how completely 
they have yielded to temptation, and abandoned all regard for 
facts, and rely wholly on myths, fictions and the baseless 
creations of their disordered imaginations. 

2. It shows the truthfulness of Methodism. That they can 
find no fault with her doctrine, and are compelled to drag-net 
creation, and at last fall back wholly on the distorted births 
of their own brains. 

It shows what they are willing to pass current as history. 
It proves good my charge — they are not qualified to write his- 



The Lord's Supper. 883 

tory. In their quotations j'oii never know from their use 
what was the fact, what the merit of the author. 

I have been amused at how they report me in Texas — two 
Baptist papers there. At several places where I preached in 
Texas last winter, Baptist preachers wrote to these papers in 
Dallas and Houston, telling what they heard me ssij. It was 
simply ridiculous, and generally as absurd as the reports these 
are noio sending out about this Debate — not a thing correctly 
reported, or even approximating thereto. It is a disgrace to 
the name of Christianity — such reckless statements and per- 
versions. 

But Dr. Graves runs the track of his ancient abuse of our 
church, and says Presbyterians" and Baptists fought the Metho- 
dists and Episcopalians in the war of 1776! 1. It is wonder- 
ful that a man will be so reckless The Methodist church 
did not exist till 1785 — four years after the war was over. So 
there is Dr. Graves' bold and reckless way of assertion in the 
absence of fact or testimony. 

2. There were a few Methodist Episcopalians, and as they 
existed mainly in Virginia, Maryland, I^ew York, South Car- 
olina and Georgia, they were among the best friends Wash- 
ington had. It was New England where the Baptists existed 
that blue lights were burned, and defect and disaster overtook 
all our armies. It was the Baptist State of Rhode Island that 
did more to defeat our cause than any State of America. Coke 
and one or two Englishmen who came over only to visit the 
colonies and labor for a season returned. But Asbury and the 
great body of her people remained — faithful to their Colony 
and work. Some Baptists returned to England also — and who 
blames them. Were we visiting a distant continent preach- 
ing, and they got up a huge seven years' war, and my family 
was here, I'd leave on the first vessel, and be a fool if I did not. 
Yet because a few EnHishmen — born and bred there and 
wedded to all her institutions, just as Mr. Spurgeon would do 
to-da}^ returned home. Dr. Graves quotes the question under 
debate and discusses the war ot '76 ! What has it to do with 
close communion ? 

Once more the Doctor brings up Masonry again. To make 



c^84 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Masons and erijo}' their rites, jou must be regularly initiated, 
we presume is what he means. If so, 1. What becomes of his 
bold deprecation of arguments from mere analogy? 2. Does 
he not know that were all Masonic lodges disorganized, Ma- 
sonry would still exist, survive; and as soon as they dared, they 
would meet again, and such meeting would be as legitimate 
masonry as ever existed ? 3. But if baptism is the condition 
of membership (1) in the Church of God — the spiritual family, 
(2) of membership in the congregation, or visible body, how 
came John's baptism if Christian as Baptists hold, not to put 
them into either? and how was it Christ put thera into both 
loithout baptism ? If the church was organized ?/;z7/iOi/i baptism, 
when did it become the door of- entrance? Point it out. 

. But the Doctor goes back on Roger Williams. Now all 
historic facts show that Benedict's account is correct. Thos. 
Olney, successor of Williams, was pastor of that Providence 
church as late as 1682. Backus, 1, 102. Olney had a succes- 
sor — Tillinghast. See further, Benedict 469. Benedict puts 
Chad. Brown, between Olney and Williams. We leave that 
with them. Cramp says Brown succeeded Williams. One 
thing is certain, their baptism all comes from those parties as 
we showed. 

As to John Clark — we ask, where did he get his authority 
to baptize? He never had been dipped. He went to Provi- 
dence 1638. Thence he wfent to I^ewport. They organized 
a political government, a body politic. In 1644 they organ- 
ized a church. So shows all baptist history. Whence came 
his baptism? Who was there to administer legal immersion 
from your stand-point ? No one. They were all sprinkled. 
Evidently they got their baptism either from Williams' party, 
or after his and Smyth's plan, Alas ! for baptist succession. 

He comes back on Odd Fellows, Masons, etc. Here is 
analogy again, so fiercely denounced by him as unallowable. 
But let it be admitted for his sake, and what of it? Will a 
Masonic Lodge exclude from aid, fellowship or recognition 
any Mason in good standing, in any lodge? Nay, if a 
Mason, is he not recognized the world over by all proper 
lodges ? 



The Lord's Supper. 885 

And if a man is a genuine Christian — -a child adopted into 
God's spiritual church, called the church so often in the ~Eq\y 
Testament, how dare you exclude him ? We leave that with 
you. He has told you of our appealing to prejudice. We have 
pleaded for peace. Our people plead for peace — some acting 
basely in the extent of their cowardice, for forty years. Still 
you aggressed. We pleaded the peace of society ; the welfare 
of the church ; danger of increasing infidelity by the exhibi- 
tion of contention between Christians — all, all availed nothing. 
A new generation of us came on, and we said — gentlemen, 
there is a way to arrive at peace. We can conquer 2i peace, and 
now we intend to do it. 

He thinks I made a mistake on the Passover in Exodus 
xii. He will see I did not by examining verses 14, 21, 23, 
and 28, where they did as the Lord had commanded. So it 
was eaten on that night, and it was the standing day for the 
beginning of its celebration ever afterwards. He will find 
trouble to catch me in " mistakes." 

Dr. Graves thinks I would not pursue such a course if I had 
better arguments. The trouble is, we do not want better, and 
know not how better could exist. We have seen that by their 
rules no one is baptized — can be baptized. This reduces it to 
absolute absurdity — hence it is exposed as false. We show 
that all Baptists in founding their sects, were compelled to go 
by the principles we all hold as Scriptural and reasonable. 
Hence we are right. That is as good as I want. 

He says Benedict gave up the point. We have not his 
words to that effect. He copied the records. He is confirmed 
by Backus, Randall, Cramp, all Baptist historians, and by all 
the Bancrofts of our nation. Hence, if he backed down, it 
shows how unreliable are all Baptist writers. We could re- 
quote all the authorities, but it is useless. 

Dr. Graves urges that the blood came before the w^ater — that is 
before baptism. Yes, and so loe maintain that all whose guilt 
demands — whose hearts are to be sprinkled from an evil con- 
science^ must come to the blood of sprinkling before they are 
baptized. Lie then pleads that Baptists can't help the situa- 
tion of their -proscriptive rules, and roll it all on the Almighty. 



^^(^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 

That is a resort of all intolerant theories of relio-ion. 

1. There are no requirements of the kind in the Bible„ 

2. All history has to be perverted to support it. 

3. The whole reformation was checked, Christianity has 
been infinitely damaged, to support it, 

IS'ot only Jeter, but Benedict, Backus and Cramp, all put it 
in evidence that to the beginning of Methodist revivals and 
influences, 'i/our cJmrch was a failure. Backus, who lived in 
that age, tells us, vol. 1, p. 152-3, "when religion was revived 
in 1741, there were but nine Baptist churches in all the Mas- 
sachusetts government, and none in Kew Hampshire or Ver- 
mont." "The pastor of the Baptist church in Boston was dark 
in doctrine, and o;p'posed the revival of religion that began there 
in 1740, therefore, a few of the church drew oiF and formed 
another church in 1742, and ordained a pastor in 1743." ISTow 
if this preacher was thus wild and bad, he was not regenerated 
when baptized, if J)\\ Graves^ position be true, nor did he 
baptize with the right symbolism, nor was he a legal admin- 
istrator. Yet the other churches flow from it as a mother- 
church. Benedict and Cramp put it in evidence that after the 
Baptist church had existed one hundred and one years — from 
1639 to 1740, in "Korth America" there were only thirty-sevei3s 
churches and "less than three thousand members." — Cramp 
p. 527. ]L^ay, not till about 1768 did they have churches in 
Vermont, l!^ew Hampshire and some other leading States. 

Such are the facts given by your own standard historians. 
We quote not from your enemies, or parties about to desert you^ 
or put on your doctrines false constructions. We quote your 
recognized standards. All those parties put it in evidence 
that piety had died out, and "Soeinianism" and ''Arianism" 
swallowed up a large part of your church. This would ruin — 
utterly destroy the symbolism of your ordinances, cut off its 
legality and blot out your pretended succession, aside from all 
the facts we adduced. Hence, it is a myth — a wild fantastic 
dream, a grotesque delusion. It is sinful — a crime against 
society, against God and the church to make so stupendous a 
delusion the occasion of so much strife and injury in the church 



The Lord's Supper. 887 

and we hold its leaders responsible to God for it. On such 
flimsy pretexts we are denounced as " usurpers and rebels 
against the government of Christ's church. Truth requires us 
to view and treat them as such," There is the liberty lov- 
ing party ! We are to be viewed and tkeated as usurpers and 
iiEBELs!! And such are the miserable pretexts they have to 
support such a cause. — \_Time out . 



888 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FIFTH SPEECH. 

Mr. President : — I have attempted to conduct this debate 
on my part, according to the Rules you read in our hearing. 
I have, I confess, yielded to the temptation to notice and reply 
to matters which I knew to be wholly irrelevant to the sub- 
ject in debate, because I was well aware that they were intro- 
duced and urged by my opponent here, to be elsewhere and 
hereafter used to the prejudice of Baptists, unless corrected 
by me. This is the case now; I have had no respondeiit the 
last two days upon this whole question, as all who have heard 
me know, and as all who read our recorded words will see. 
My opponent, with no ground in the Word of God to stand 
upon, with the practice of every scriptural and unscriptural 
Church in the world against him, and at the same time, all 
ecclesiastical history, all theologians and the teachings of his 
own Discipline, and the admissions of Clarke and Watson 
being equally adverse to his position, has wisely yielded the 
whole field of discussion upon this question, and has expended 
his time and strength upon another as kindred to it as 
whether or not there is a ITorthwest passage from the Atlantic 
to the Pacific through Bchrings' straits. All thinking men 
would decide that there may be ; the navigators have never 
yet sailed their vessels through it after vainly attempting it 
for hundreds of years. I say the question my professed oppo- 
nent has been discussing all this time is whether there have 
been a continuity of Baptist communities from the days 
of the Apostles until now. Suppose no man has traced the line 
through every year, suppose no man can do it until the his- 
tory of the Dark Ages is better known, until the Archives of 
the Vatican and the Inquisition are thrown open and thoroughly 
explored — what then is it — "therefore Baptism is not prere- 
quisite to the Lord's Supper? What connection between the 
premise and conclusion ? I will fairly state the only argument 
he has made in conducting his defence. 



The Lord's Supper. 889 

It cannot be shown that there has'been a succession of Bap- 
tist churches from Christ down — there has been no succession. 
Baptists sprung from Munzer in Germany — from John Smyth 
in England, from Roger WilHamsin America — are unbaptized, 
etc., etc. Therefore, Baptism is not prerequisite to the Sup- 
per I ! ! 

He fully realizes the fallacy of his argument — no man 
better, but from the start he gave up the question, and has 
laid out his strength in attempting to place American Baptists 
in a false light before the public, and to excite the prejudice of 
Pedobaptists and the world against them, by a travesty of their 
history. Having established the proposition with proofs irre- 
fragable — b}^ proofs, as yet, unquestioned by him, I again 
leave the discussion to show you what reliance can be placed 
upon his manipulations of historical matters, when his object 
is to injure Baptists. 

I have marked four statements to notice, and. will do so as 
briefly as possible : 

1. The Donatists of the fourth and seventh centuries. Bap- 
tists do claim them as their Ecclesiastical ancestors. They were 
the Puritans, as well as the Paterines — sufferers — and martvrs 
of those ages in Africa. They abjured the growing corrup- 
tions of the so-called Catholic party, the bringing of the 
world into the church — the I'ising doctrine of baptismal 
efficacy. They were grossly slandered and cruelly persecuted 
by the Catholics v\'ho had affiliated with the State, and en- 
joyed the favor of the Ejiperor Constantine. These did not 
respect their civil rights, and sought to rob them of their 
property, their houses of worship, under the plea that is urged 
by Catholics of this age ; they had no right to exist as separate 
churches, but should unite with them, and submit to their 
authority. This the Donatists refused to do, and because they 
did not recognize the Catholics as Scriptural churches, as hav- 
ing, and therefore, as being able to give valid baptism, 
the Donatists re-immersed all whom they were able to convert 
from the Catholic faith, as all sound Baptist churches do 
to-day. They received from the Catholics the odious name 
of Ana-baptists — i. e., re-baptizers. Now the stern fact stands 



890 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

forth, these Donatists, Anabaptists, of the fourth century, were 
the true churches of Christ, or their persecutors, the Arian 
Catholics were — else Christ had no church or kingdom visi- 
ble on this earth in these centuries. Bitterly as Eld. Ditzler 
and his people may hate Baptists, they must choose between 
these confessedly corrupt and persecuting Catholics who denied 
the divinity of Christ — or the persecuted Donatists, who 
held essentially the self-same doctrines that we Baptists hold 
to-day. So that the Pedobaptist Fuller could say, that the 
English Baptists were the Donatists new dipped. 

But these Donatists thrice applied to Constantine for relief 
and so did the tax-oppressed Baptists of Virginia, to the 
Assembly for relief from the persecutions and wrongs inflicted 
upon them by the Anglican Catholic church. So they did to 
Congress, until they obtained it — all they asked and all the 
Donatists asked — "freedom to worship God." Gibbon says 
of them : 

"The inflexible zeal of freedom and fanaticism animated the 
Donatists to refuse obedience to the usurpers whose election 
they disputed and whose Spiritual powers they denied." 

These were the Baptists of Africa, and there was a succes- 
sion of them until exterminated or driven into other lands. 
Christianity^ was extinguished in Africa by Mohammadonism. 
So much for Eld. Ditzler's allusion to our brethren the Dona- 
tists. He and his people have the honor to be related to them. 

2. But the Baptists originated with the Munsterites and were 
the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century, known as the mad- 
men of Munster. 

This is but the repetition of the slander of the Lutherans 
and Protestants who sought to excuse themselves by laying 
the charge upon the innocent. It is the cry of "stop thief" 
raised by the guilty to escape detection. 

It is a well established and notorious fact of history that the 
"Munsterites" were sprinklers, and not Baptists, they were 
Protestants. They had followed Luther, Calvin, and Zwingle 
out of Home, and broke awa}^ from their influence and ran into 
fanaticism and excesses of all sorts. Was this the origin of the 



The Lord's Supper. 891 

Baptists — were these my ancestors, or those of my opponents ? 

Mosheim the Lutheran, whose history is published by the M. 

E. church, says: 

"The true origin of that sect which acquired the name of Anabaptists 
by their administering anew the rite of baptism to those who came over 
to their communion, and derived that of Mennonites from that famous 
man to whom they owe the greatest part of their present fehcity, is hid 
IN THE REMOTE DEPTHS OF ANTIQUITY, and is Consequently, extremely 
difficult to be ascertained." — Vol. iv. id. 427. 

Have the Baptists of America and England any connection 
with the sprinkling Anabaptists of Germany? Merle d'Au- 
bigne, the distinguished author of the History of the Reforma- 
tion, says : 

" On one point it seems necessary to guard against misapprehension. 
Some persons imagine that the Anabaptists of the times of the reforma- 
tion and the Baptists of our day are the same. But they are as different 
as possible." 

To this testimony we add that of Fessenden. In his Ency- 
clopedia, quoted with approbation by d'Aubigne, he says: 

' "Anabaptists. — The English and Dutch Baptists do not consider 
the word as at all applicable to their sect." It is but justice to observe 
that the Baptists of Holland, England and the United States are to be held 
essentially distinct from those seditious and fanatical individuals above 
mentioned, as they profess an equal aversion to all principles of rebellion 
of the one, and enthusiasm of the other." — Pref. to Ref. p. 10. 

Dr. Barnas Sears, late President of Brown University, has 
recently contributed an article upon the History of the Ger- 
man Anabaptists of the sixteenth century and has proved to 
the world that the Anabaptists of the sixteenth century were 
the veritable followers of the Zwickau prophets, and originated 
in the year 1522, were Protestants and sprinklers and not 
Baptists. He says : 

" It should be remembered that tJds sect appeared at first not under the 
name of Anabaptists, but of the Zwickau Prophets, and that for several 
years those in Germany with whom Luther and Melancthon were con- 
cerned, cared little about baptism in any wa^'-, and did not iDractice differ- 
ently from the church. Of Munzer, the leader of the Anabaptists, Scide- 
mann his latest and most critical biographer, says : " There is not a trace 
of evidence that he ever rebaptized anyone." CEcolampadius says that 
Munzer visited him in Basle, near the beginning of 1525, which was about 
three years after the Zwickau party was formed (Ecolampadius asked 
him how he administered baptism, to which he replied, 'T baptize pub- 
licly, once in two or three monthS; all the children of the parish that are 



892 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

born during "this interval." Both Fussh and Schreiber say that Munzer 
never rebaptized any person. The first instance of rebaptism, say they, 
occurred near Zurich in 15^4. 

In 1521 and 1522, Storli, Munzer and others broached the Anabaptist 
doctrines in Wittenberg, Zwickau, and other places in Saxony. But, a.s 
I have said, none of them at that time went farther than to discuss the 
theory of infant baptism, and that was quite incidental as relating to a 
mere subordinate question. They did not rebaptize adults. The first re- 
baptism by the Anabaptists of this period did not take place in Germany, 
but in Switzerland ; was not performed by the disciples of Luther, but by 
those of Zwingie ; and not in the year 1521, but in 1524. 

Conrad Grebel, in a secret assembly in Zurich, baptized George Blau- 
rock in the spring of 1524. The original account runs substantially thus : 
"Blaurock arose in the assembly and in an ecstatic state threw himself 
prostrate upon the floor. When he came out of that state, he said it was 
the will of God [as revealed to him] that they should, without delay, be 
rebaptized; w^hereupon, he fell upon his knees and was baptized by Grebel. 
Then he in turn baptized the rest." This is the first definite account we 
have of rebaptism by this sect. — See The Baptist^ vol. 9, id. 123. 

Munzer Himself the Head and Leader oe the Munster 
'' Anabaptists" was a Pedobaptist. 

Let this fact be remembered and used in repelling the 
charge of Eld. Ditzler. 

I conclude with an article from the New American Cyclopedia 
'' Art. Anabaptists' \' 

" There w^as another class of Anabaptists, widely different from those 
who have been described [the Munster men]. In some instances, undoubt- 
edly, when the former class fell back upon then purely spiritual views, the 
two parties coalesced. Brandt refers to an instance in which the moderate 
were brought into difficulty by being found in such association with the 
fanatiCcil. The distinction^ however, is real, and may be traced. It is a 
mistake to suppose that the rejection of mfant baptism during the refor- 
mation, was found among the unlearned only. Melancthon, Zwingh and 
Qj^colampadius were all troubled by the quesiions which arose respecting 
the adjustment of this rite to the personal faith required by Protestant- 
ism. Some of those who became leaders of the Anabaptists were the 
associates and equals of these reformers. Mantz, Grebel and Hubmeyer 
were men of learning, the last of great genius and eloquence. Mantz had 
been the friend and fellow-student of Zwhigli, and was an early martyr 
in the cause of the Anabaptists, Zwmgli himself pronouncing the sentence 
in the words, '■ QuHtercun mergit mergatiir.^ The persecution of such men 
and then" followers in Switzerland, shocked the moderate of all parties. 
In expressing his views of this persecution, Erasmus pays a tribute to the 
character of the sufierers in these words : ' A people against w^hom there 
is ver}^ little to be said, and concerning whom we are assured there 



The Lord's Supper. 893 

are many who have been reformed from the worst to the best lives ; 
and though, perhaps, they may foohshly err in certain opinions, yet 
liave they never stormed towns nor churches, nor entered into any 
combinations against the authority of the magistrate, nor driven anybody 
from his government or estate.' These people, so persecuted, demanded a 
church composed of spiritual persons, introduced into it by a voluntary 
baptism. They demanded likewise the separation of the church from the 
state, and the non-interference of the magistrate in matters of religion. 
Anabaptists of the same class were found in the Netherlands in large 
numbers. The record of their sufferings, their martyrs multiplied b^^ 
thousands, furnishes a melancholy and affecting chapter inhuman history. 
William of Orange, founder of the Dutch republic, was sustained in the 
gloomiest hours of his struggles by their sympathy and aid, and has left 
liis testimony to their loyalty, industry and virtue. That great prince, 
however importuned, steadfastly refused to persecute them. The same class 
were found in England during the reign of Edward VI., and Burnet de- 
clares that not books, but flames, were used in reply to their arguments. * 
Simon Menno, born at the close of the fifteenth, or, as some say, at the 
commencement of the sixteenth century, educated for the priesthood of 
the Roman Catholic church, and converted in the prime of manhood to 
the faith of the Anabaptists, became their chief leader, and the instru- 
ment of their organization into a recognized body of Protestant Christians. 
Menno disavowed f 07^ himself and his brethren any con7iection whatever with the 
fanatics of Munster, though it is not impossible that some of the more ra- 
tional of the furious party were won by him to greater sobriety of views, 
and to peaceful lives. ■■ -=• * Mennonites and Anabaptists have from 
his time been interchangeable terms, and the communities so called have 
descended to the present age. Even while he lived, however, they became 
separated into two great divisions, the 'Fine' and the 'Gross, 'the former 
claiming a more strict adherence to the austerity of the older Anabaptists, 
and the latter relaxing into closer resemblance to Protestants generally." 

3. But Baptists originated, or derived their baptism from 

John Smyth, who was an Episcopalian, and immersed himself, 

• and from him sprang the English Baptist churches, says Eld. 

Ditzler. This perversion of the facts of history was first started 

by Thos. Wall for the self-same purpose that prompts my 

opponent to repeat it, to injure Baptists. There is no more 

truth in it than in the slander I have just exposed that 

Munzer of Germany originated the Baptist denomination. 

It belongs to the men, means and instrumentalities upon 

which Methodist controversialists, under the lead of mv dis- 

tinguished opponent, relj^ to conquer a peace from Baptists in 

the Southwest, as they boast they intend — close the mouths 

of Baptists, and make the Avorld hate them. It is wholly 



8y4 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

false. The Baptists of England, when it was first made, pro- 
nounced it false — and proved it to be false — Crosby, Ivemy, 
Evans, Kiffin. 

Here are the facts gathered ont of these histories which I 
furnished to the author of "Baptist Succession," out of my 
library — and they can be relied upon. 

"I have gathered the following facts in regard to John Smyth and his 
company: '■'■ F.irst. John Smyth was a minister of the established 
Church of England. Second. About the year 1606, Mr. Smyth led a 
company of exiles — Separatists or Brownists — from England to Amster- 
dam, in Holland. Third. He here united with the English church of 
Brownists, under the pastorship of Mr. Ainsworth. Fourth. A difficulty 
occurred in Mr. Ainsworth's church, on account of John Smyth's opposi- 
tion to infant baptism, which resulted in the exclusion of Smyth and his 
party from said church. Fifth. John Smyth and his party proceeded to 
administer baptism, and to the formation of a church. There is no evi- 
dence that Smyth baptized himself, but it is probable that one of his com- 
pany baptized him. Sixth. John Smyth and a part of his company soon 
became dissatisfied with their rash proceedings, upon which a difficulty 
arose between them and tlie majority of the church, on account of which 
Smyth and his party were excluded. Thus, it appears that Johu Smyth 
was excluded from this " Baptist church" of which he was the founder. 
Of this, Mr. Evans, the historian, says: 'It is admitted, on all bands, 
that, from some cause or other, the church over which Smyth and Hvijwys 
presided was divided, but the cause of division is not so manifest. Smyth, 
with some twenty-four persons, was excluded from the church, and thi-ne 
sought communion with one of the Mennonite churches in the city.'' 

Seventh. Mr. Smyth repudiated his own baptism and church organiza- 
tion as invalid, and, with his party, sought admission into one of ihe 
Mennonite churches at Amsterdam, and was received after making the 
following confession : " The nauies of the English who confess this l.heir 
error, and repent of it, viz : that they undertook to baptize themselves, 
contrary to the order appointed by Christ, and who now desire, on tJiis 
account, to be brought back to the true Church of Christ as quickly as 
may be suffered. 

We unanimously desire that this, our wish, should be signified to the 
church. 

Names OF Men. — " Hugh Bromhead, Jarvase Neville, John Smyth, 
Thomas Canadyne, Edward Hankin, John Hardy, Thomas Pygott, 
Francis Pygott, Robert Stanley, Alexander Fleming, Alexander Hodg- 
kins, John Grindall, Solomon Thompson, Samuel Halton, Thomas 
Dolphin. 

Names of Women. — " Ann Bromhead, Jane South worth, Mary 
Smyth, Joan Halton, Alls Arnfield, Isabel Thomson, Margaret Stanley, 
Mary Grindall, Mother Pygott, Alls Pygott, Margaret Pygott, Betteris 
Dickinson, Mary Dickinson, EUyn Paynter, Alls Parsons, Joane Briggs, 
JaneArgan." 



The Lord's Supper. So 



:> 



The above confession may also be found in Latin, on page 244 of Evans' 
Early Eng. Bap. His., Vol. I. 

Eighth. After Mr. Smith and his party were "cast out" from his own 
church, and confessed their error in setting up for themselves, on their 
humble petition, they were received into a Mennonite church, whose 
"mode of baptism was by sprinkling or affusion." 

Ninth. Not long after this, 1610, John Smyth died in Holland. He 
never returned to England. He never belonged to any English Baptist 
church ; neither did he ever belong to a legitimate Baptist church at all. 

Tenth. The remnant of the John Smyth church left in Amsterdam, 
united with the Mennonite church in 1615, and thus became extinct." 

4. But the English Baptists received their baptism from the 
Episcopahaiis, if they did not from John Smyth — commenced 
with sprinkling, say our enemies. Not a shadow of truth in 
this charije. I will quote a few facts, from the same work, 
since he gives the authorities that ;ustain them. 

Mr. Crosby, the historian, says: "In the time of King Edward the 
Second, about the year 1315, Wcdter Lollard a Oerman preacher, a man 
of great renown among the Waldenses^ came into England ; he spread 
their doctrines very much in these parts, so that afterward they went by 
the name of Lollards.'''' 

That these Lollards were Baptists, who had their descent through the 
German Baptists, from the ancient Waldenses, is shown by Mr. Orchard. 
" The Lollards' Tower," in which these witnesses for Christ suffered, still 
stands in London, as a monument of Papal cruelty toward these ancient 
English Baptists. Of the Baptists of England, Bishop Burnet says : 
"At this time (Anno 1549) there were many Anabaptists m. several parts 
of England. They were generally Germans, whom the revolutions there 
had forced to change their seats." In this we have the testimony of Bur- 
net, that the early English Baptists, called Anabaptists, were from Ger- 
many, and were numerous, long before the John Smyth affair, in Holland, 
In the year 1538; King Henry VIII, issued a proclamation against the 
Anabaptists (Baptists) and others; and in the same year. Archbishop 
Cranmer received a commission " to inquire after Anabaptists, to proceed 
against them, to .restore the penitent, to burn their books, and to deliver 
the obstinate to the secular arm." And of this time, " Mr. Fuller tells us, 
"that in this year, a match being made by the Lord CromweU's contriv- 
ance, between King Henry, and the Lady Anne, of Cleves, Dutchmen 
flocked faster than formerly into England, and soon after began to broach 
their strange opinions, being branded with the general name of Anabap- 
tists. ' These Anabaptists,' he adds, for the main, are but Donatists, new 
dipt; in this year their name first appeared in our ^ng^^z's^ Chronicles.' 
*I read,' says he 'that four Anabaptists, three men and one woman, all 
Dutch, bare faggots at PauVs cross ; and three days after, a man and a 
woman of their sect, were burnt in Smithfleld.' " 

This is the tistimony of Thomas Fuller, a historian of the Churqh of 



896 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

England, that Dutch Baptists (Anabaptists) flocked into England in the 
year 1538, in the reign of Henry VIII., long before the time of John 
Smyth. 

But we have still more direct testimony concerning the succession of 
the more modern English Baptists, from whom the Baptists of America 
descended. In the year 1633 a large number, of Pedobaptists, belonging 
to the Independents, became convinced of the correctness of Baptist 
principles. They were i)uzzled at first as to the best method of obtaining 
valid baptism. They appointed one of their number, Richard Blunt, to 
visit Holland and there receive baptism from a church which was known 
to be in the regular- succession from the ancient Waldenses." 

Mr. Spilsbary was the next minister of this church and it 
was of this church that Eld. John Clark was a member, who 
organized the first Baptist church that was ever set up on this 
continent, A. D, 1638. 

5. But the baptism of American Baptist churches origin- 
ated with Roger Williams, who was an Episcopalian like John 
Smyth and baptized himself, says Eld. Ditzler, therefore, 
baptism is not prerequisite to the Supper ! Now, this, the last 
charge I shall notice, is as unfounded as the others. It is a 
fact, notoriously true, that Roger Williams never w^as a Bap- 
tist for one day or one hour in his life, nor did he ever take 
the Lord's Supper with any Baptist church in his life. There 
is not a minister or member of any church on earth whose 
baptism is derived from Roger Williams. 

Any one interested enough to examine the facts in the case 
can do so by procuring two little works from the Southern 
Baptist Publication Society. Adlam's "First Baptist Church- 
in America," and "Trilemma." 

[N'ow you should understand the real secret of my opponent's 
assailment of the succession of Baptist churches which we 
can trace direct from the Welsh Baptist churches that were 
planted there in the days of Paul. He knows that his church 
has no succession except through the church of England,thence 
directly into the bosom of the Papacy — the meretricious woman 
of Revelation. It is nothing but pure eiiYj that prompts him 
to deny to Baptists what he is shamefully conscious that his 
sect does not possess. 

6. But I have charged his church with holding and teaching 
doctrines which I know she does not hold or teach as baDtis- 



The Lord's Supper. 897 

mal and sacrameiitai efficacy. Why, then, does it stand in 
your Articles of Faith? Whj' does it stand out upon every 
page and paragraph of your Ritual? Wh}^ does Wesley, the 
author and finisher of your faith, say that "it is allowed that 
the whole office for baptism in our church proceeds upon the 
supposition that all who are baptized in infancy are at the 
same time born again?" Why did he say, and why did the 
General Conference publish it to the world, " If infants are 
guilty of original sin, then they are proper subjects of bap- 
tism, seeing in the ordinary way they cannot be saved unless 
they be washed away by baptism," thus consigning my dead 
infants to eternal perdition? Why do your standard writers, 
and even bishops declare that baptism and the Supper are 
"sacraments" and means of grace and salvation to the uure- 
generate, unless you believe it? 

7. But he says that it is not true that Methodist Presiding 

Elders invite the unbaptized and confessedly unregenerate to 

come to the table they spread and call them to the Lord's 

Supper, as a means of grace — and converting grace. I affirm 

that such invitations are common all over the Southwest, and 

I don't believe that there is a presiding elder who hears, or 

may read this Debate, but has given a general invitation to all 

as a means of grace. Since I have declared and Elder Dit- 

zler denied it. Elder W. A. Jarrell, before me, pastor of the 

church in Stonington, Illinois, puts this in writing over his 

name: 

"In Charleston, 111., where I was once pastor, the M. E. pastor — Mr. 
Wilkins — gave the bread and wine to the Sunday school children. Some 
of them on returning home, asked their parents " what it was done for ?" 
In the vicinity where I am now settled, they recently invited the uncon- 
verted to take the bread and wine." 

But this matter of doctrine and other things he has brought 
in will come up fully to-morrow and the days following. I 
must now close this question, giving you of my arguments, a 
brief 

Summary. 

I claim that I have demonstratively proved my proposition 

by the following arguments : 

1. The Lord's Supper is a rite of, and in, a Christian Church. 
56 



898 The Great Carrollton Deeate. 

All denominations in theii' articles, of faith admit this. That is not a 
Scriptural Church that observes it outside. It has speciously been ob- 
jected that it cannot l>e in the church. Ijecauseit is administereil to initiate 
those T\i.thout. Is not the initiating rite of Masonry in then Lodges — as 
as much so as the degrees themselves ? 

2. 'So Apostohc Church gave membership except by Christian bap- 
tism upon a profession of regeneration of heart. Proved by Scripture. 
and admitted by all denominations. 

3. Ergo, Christian Baptism is in every case a pre-requisito to a partici- 
pation of the Lryrd's Supper. 

My Second Ai'gument Tvas this ; Baptism is in every case pre-requisite 
to the Lord's Supper because the Divine Lawgiver placed it in this 
order in the co mmi ssion. 1. Faith in Chiist, 2. Baptism into Christ. 
3. The observance of the SuiDper — it being among the "all things" He com- 
manded to be observed. I showed that the o-rder is as inviolable as the 
law itself, and is law itself, and to violate the order is to violate the law — 
to invert the order is to joervert and subvert the doctrine both of Bap- 
tism and of the Supper. 

My Third Argument was the invariable observance of the order by the 

Apostles, by all the Xew Testament Chinches, and by all j^rofessed 
Churches from the beginning unth the practice was introduced by Metho- 
dist Societies— as a means of salvation to the luiregenerate. Wall says 
" among all the absurdities that were ever held, none ever maintained 
that any person should partake of the communion before he was bap- 
tized." 

The multiplied examjoles by the Xew Testament Chinches is equiva- 
lent to law — if we had no prescribed order hi the law itself. 

My next Argument for the precedence of baptism over the vSupper was 
the manifest symbohsm of the Supper and the relationship of that sym- 
iKDlism to Christian Baptism. 

One of the e^ndent symbols of the Sux^per is that of sustentation — called 
the eating of the bodv and drinkins: of the blood of Christ bv faith, on 
the part of the children of G-od — spiritual life must precede the partaking 
of spiritual food. Baptism symbolizes a resin-rection unto spiritual life, and 
the Supper spiritual food — and not to foUow baptism would symbolize 
what is repugnant to reason as weh. as the teaching of sacred Scriptures. 

My next Argument was : That another symbol of the Supper, is the 
oneness of the Church and hotly of Christ — and the professed onene^ 
A\'ith that visible body by each participant, oneness in its foAtk^ and hope, 
oneness in the baptism that unites to His body. So that no unbap- 
tized behever could symbolize this important doctrine, nor could he enjoy 
it any more than a hmb dissevered from the parent body. 

Aly final Argument, was : Xo unbaptized sinner can discern the Lord's 
body and for such to partake of it. would be to eat and drink condemna- 
tion to his o^\Ti soul, and those rehgious teachers who dare to influence 
him to do so must ceitaioly bring down a greater condemnation upon 
their o^ti souls. 



The Lord's Supper. 899 

And I urged as an argument against the administration of it to sinners, 
and as a conclusive proof that it is a perversion — that in no case known 
to me, is it so administered, except as a sacrament, a means of imparting 
converting grace, «. «., personal regeneration and salvation which is a 
corruption and perversion of the Gospel of Christ. ' ' We have no such 
practice, neither the Churches of God." 

Then I crowned my Arguments with the concurrent testimony of the 
standard authors and writers of all denominations. If ever there was a 
question demonstratively proved I claim that this has been. 



900 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S FIFTH REPLY. 

Gextlemex Modeeators : — It is hard to set Dr. Graves to 
see that to draw near bv faith — to be in love and charitv with 
your neighbors in the Bible sense, havins: '"repented of your 
sins,'"'" doe* not apply to sinners and the unregenerate. And 
we had to tell him once that whatever be our defects, thevs^ladlv 
on all occasions, received our members into their church on 
the recreneration thev professed in our church. Xot onlv so, 
but, sad to tell, they have habitually to our certain biGwledge, 
received into their church our expelled members and rainisters^ 
when expelled on charges of immorality. T\"e can give " a 
local habitation and a name.'" where it occured in Xentucky. 
So that point is settled. 

He has tried hard to impress you that we do not represent 
Methodism on this proposition. If we did not represent it, 
strange we should be called on over all the South to represent 
her on so many important occasions. AVe have been perfectly 
willing to allow Dr. Graves to represent Baptism on all 
points in this Debate. There is a good reason for his trying 
to impress you with the idea that I do not represent my 
church. He has seen and felt that (I'l our position cannot be 
attacked with anv hope at all. 2. That his is utterlv demol- 
ished. 3. That from our stand-point, a ruinous campaign can 
be carried on against their position, and that peace conquered 
in shorter style than is pleasant to Baptists. He assumes that 
the woman in the wilderness is his church. TThere is the 
proof? He has no church till 1606 to 1607 — it was General, 
Arminian, Open-Communion Baptist — a people they now 
utterly excommunicate. How is this? He tells of some- 
bodv here readv and anxious to debate these historical ques- 
tions with me. TTell, Dr. Graves has more endorsement than 
anv body else — I'd rather meet him. 

He still harps on one baptism. Xow cannot Dr. Graves 
understand that when Paul savs of the ordinances of the Jews 



The Lord's Supper. 901 

that there were "divers baptisms," and of the apostolic days, 
Heb. vi. 2, they were to leave the doctrine of baptisms — plural- 
when there was the baptism with water, baptism with the 
Spirit, baptism with fire — cannot he see that there is a plural- 
ity, and that the only way to reconcile a seeming contradiction 
is to refer the one baptism to the Spirit, as the source of unity 
and real fellowship, instead of to water baptism ? There was 
but one Lee, one Washington; yet you point to that picture 
in your parlor, and say that is Washington, this Lee, that 
Grant — yet you mean they are representatives, mere shadows 
of these great men. All understand you. So Paul, to the same 
effect, Rom. ii. 28, 29, says "he is not a Jew who is one out- 
wardly." He says that is "not circumcision which is outward 
in the flesh." So that is not the baptism that is outward, in 
the flesh, it is merely symbolic baptism — not a real purifying 
power, but only symbolic of it. 

As to Hawks, I care not for Hawks or Owls, but what say 
the apostles and Christ. 

Li his syllogisms, he assumes the point in debate — a matter 
exposed enough already. In the times before 1784 there were 
a few societies — the first meeting of which occurred in 1774 
as an association. They were organized into a separate church 
1784-5 as we detailed before. As did many Baptists, so did 
some Methodists in the rise of the war of 1776, and as Spurgeon 
would do to-day, and as I>r. Graves would do were he in Eng- 
land, so did some Methodists in that age. Weak is the cause 
that needs sympathy by such efforts as these the Doctor has 
made. We now review our arguments in part. We began 
by showing — 

1„ The Position of Baptists. — They hold that you 1. must 
be immersed, they the judge, 2. When a proper believer, 

3. By a proper administrator, 4. Baptized for the proper 
purpose, Howell 195; J. E. Graves LL.D., The Baptist, July 

4, 1868, 7'exas Baptist Pulpit, 19. 

They ought to be sure they are right. 1. As to immersion. 
That has been examined. 2. Suppose the immersed party be 
not a regenerate believer, when immersed, yet afterwards by 
God's grace is regenerated, he is (1) not a member, (2) he is 



-^f 



902 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

not baptized, (3) he has no right to the communion, accord- 
ing to Baptist doctrines. 3. If the administrator be not in 
Baptist succession, by their decisions, he is not baptized. 
This leads into the mazes of succession, which we will take 
up duly. 

2. History of the Lord's Supper. — Let us examine next 
into the Paschal Feast. Ist. (1) Li Exodus xii, 3-28 it was 
instituted and celebrated before baptism was ordained or 
practiced. (2) Baptism occurs first, Ex. xiv, 1 Cor. x, 1, 2. 
(3) Formally ordained, Ex. xxx, 18-22; xl, 30-32; practiced 
Lev. viii, 6, under the word wash. 2d. The Lord's Supper 
was ordained and eaten (1) before baptism was announced as 
an ordinance of the church at all; (2) Baptism was never 
practiced by Christ personally, therefore subordinate, inferior 
in place to the Lord's supper which Christ personally adminis- 
tered. (3) It was not even known, not to say settled, so far as 
the record goes, that baptism was to be performed at all in 
the future. 

It was ordained Matt, xxviii. 19, 20. 

3. Lord's Supper taken before Christ organized any visible 
church from a Baptist stand-point. 

4. The history of its institution does not show it, 

(1) l!Tothing in it shows baptism as a precedent. 

(2) Judas took it. If he was not converted, of course not 
baptized, from your stand-point. If he was converted and bap- 
tized, then lost. 

Mark thus reads, xiv : And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said. Verily 
I say unto you, one of you which eateth with me shall betray me. And 
they began to be sorrowful, and to say unto him one by one, Is it I ? and 
another said is it I ? And he answered and said unto them, It is one of 
the twelve that dippeth with me in the dish. The son of man indeed go- 
eth, as it is written of him : but woe to that man by whom the son of man 
is betrayed ! good were it for that man if he had never been born. And 
as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to 
them, Take, eat ; this is my body. And he took the cup, and when he 
had given thanks, he gave it to them ; and they all drank of it." 

He was left by Christ to assume the responsibility of it. 
Examine yourselves. He affirmed repeatedly, and in last 
speech especially. Eph. ii, 15, to " make in himself of twain 
one new man," — he says "new church," — and when Gentiles 



The Lord's Supper. 



903 



came in it was a new church." That is, it was church on the 
Mount — was a new church. Gentiles come in eleven 2/ears later 
— yet that was the " new church r Such are a few of'his incon- 
sistencies. They had better settle when the church was estab- 
lished. 

4. PauVs Record, 1 Cor. xi, 16-29 ; x, 16, 21 : 

" Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the 
Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But 
let a man examine himself, and so let him eat pf that bread, and drink of 
that cup. But he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drink- 
eth damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body." 

"The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the 
blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the 
body of Christ ? For we being many are one bread, and one body ; for we 
are all partakers of that one bread." 

Here is the qualification given. It perfectly accords with that 
of Christ. Partaking of Christ spiritually, is here the condi- 
tion of membership to all partakers of the Lord's Supper — and 
condition of taking it. His position is far more severe than 
all teaching of Old and ^ew Testaments. 

5. Analogy of Scripture and God's design in ordinances, 
when sacrifices co?zZ<i yio^ be secured or ofi:ered, when oil could 
oot be had, circumcision performed, Josh, v, 1-8 omitted forty 
years, yet Gen. xvii, 9, 14, Aaron even transgressed the law, 
not eating the sin-ofi;*ering of the people. Moses allows it, 
Lev. X, 16-20; Joshua against Medad and Eldad prophesying 
in the camp, not first going to the Lord at the tent door of the 
tabernacle, he wished Moses to forbid them, Kum. xi, 16-26; 
yet Moses rebukes him, and prays for more such prophets. 
2 Chron. xxx, 13-26, people came to the Passover in an undue 
manner, and ate it otherwise than as the law directed, and at 
Hezekiah's prayer all was sanctioned. 

6. The object of the Supper, (1) "Do this in remembrance of 
me." Baptism is not a necessary condition of that. (2) The 
qualification is, "Let a man examine himself ^^ — "Discern tlie 
Lord's body." 

7. By Baptist rules, no one can take it. 

(1). Which of their various orders is " the Baptist Church ? " 
Who is to settle that ? 



904 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

The first branch, founded by Smyth, 1606 to 1608, self- 
constituted, became Arians in large part, as Benedict, Cramp 
and other Baptists state. The founder of the Calvinistic wing, 
Spilsbury, had been an Episcopalian. Whence his baptism ? 
So R. Williams, Clark, all of them got their baptism irregularly. 
Xo chain exists. 

(2.) Apostolic iMQCQ^iion^ so-called. " Texas Baptist Pulpit,'^ 

rol. I. p. 18, 19 (1873) : 

' ' The properly appointQ(i officers of a government alone can administer 
its laws (18)." '' Xeither Scripture nor reason authorizes us to recognize 
any man at this day, as an official minister af the Gospel, but one 
appointed to that ;office by a charch of Jesus Christ, nor any pretended 
administrations of the ordinance of baptism as valid^ except those per- 
formed by a projoerly authorized administrator." 

See also pp. 258, 259, 260. Of all, save Baptists : "They are all usurpers 
ajid rebels against the government of Christ's church. Truth requires US to 
view and treat them as such." (Texas jBap. Pul. i. 265.) 

Db. J. K. Graves. — "No Fedobaptist or CampbelUte is authorized to 
preach the Gospel." "Eat even if these ministers had been duly baptized 
b;^' a regular Baptist churcn, holding the errors they do, they should 
X)romptly be excluded, and thereby denied both the pulpit and fellowship 
of the church, and, of com'se, denied the administration of, or participa- 
tion in, the ordinances of the church." "The Campbellite was immersed 
to secure . . . and the regeneration of his heart,''' and u a genuine Camp- 
l^lhte, "he has no other change of heart than that he received in the 
ojKLter.^ (The Baptist, J uiy 4, 1868, editorial by J. B. Graves.) 

If UNIMMERSED people ca'finot take the Lord's Supper because 
imbaptized, hoic can such baptize people and administer the capacity 
so necessary to take it :? 

(1). In Teriullian's day till fourth centurj', three immersions 
were required for one baptism, and three mostly when by im- 
mersion, till thirteenth century. 

(2). The Anabaptists of Germany had no baptism save from 
the affusions of the Roman church. 

(3). The Baptists of England had none, save the sprinkling 
of English " priests." 

(4). The American Baptists had none save that by Roger 
Williams, Hollimau, etc. Backus' His. Bap. Lib. 1. 90, 102-3; 
Benedict's Hist. 462-3, 465, 450; Clark's 1st. Church, 1644; 
Cramp, Randall, etc., etc. 

By these principles we have no 'proof of a church at all in 
the world. 



The Lord's Supper. 905 

8tli. They admit it is a church ordinance, Texas Baptist 
Pulpit, vol. i, 258-260; Baptist Library, Howell, Encyclopedia, 
Art. Baptist. But we have proved, 1.- That all Christians are 
members of Christ's Church. 2. We proved that we, as 
Methodists, are churches. We have demonstrated that all 
sav^ed, all regenerate people are in the church. God's Church 
consists of all his saved. Eph. ii, 16-21; Heb. xi, xii, 1-24; 
1 Cor. xii, 12, 13, etc. etc. 

9th. As such, having partaken of the blood spiritaallj; 
having eaten of the bread spiritually, John vi, 49-51, 54-58; 
1 Cor. X, 3, 4, 16 ; having been baptized spiritually, 1 Cor. xii, 
13; Acts xi, 15, 16; i, 5; Matt, iii, 11 etc. They are entitled 
to the symbols who have the substance. All regenerate peo- 
ple have Christ formed in them, are partakers of the Divine 
nature, and are entitled at once to the symbol that represents 
that fact. 

The commission. Matt, xxviii, 19, 20, teaching them to ob- 
serve all things. They say, 1st. Teach or disciple. 2d. 
Baptize them. 3d. Teach to observe all, etc., of which the 
Lord's Supper is a part. Howell, 37; Judd's Review of M. 
Stuart, 120; Dr. Graves' Baptist, Sept. 18, '75. 

1. Cannot people be Christ's disciples before baptized. 
Hence take the Supper ? Matt, iv, 18-22; ix, 9, 10, " his dis- 
ciples." 

2. While this is right, the general rule, are those who can- 
not be at the moment baptized, to be denied, when even in 
Old Testament times, no such rigid enforcement of the letter 
was allowed ? 

H. Do you debar those — all those who fail to do all Christ 
commands them to do? Why make an external rite super- 
sede the far greater matters of the law? Hence it is pure, 
unadulterated Pharisaism — bigotry. 

4. It is remarkable that the three most illustrious lights you 
Baptists ever had or ever will have — Robt. Hall, John Bunyan 
and Spurgeon, were and are open communionists. 

5. It is assumed that the Apostles promptly and at once 
always baptized their converts, Howell, 40, etc. This is 
utterly untrue. Acts x, 44-47; 1 Cor. i, 15-17. 'No record 



9o6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

in the Bible where any of the twelve Apostles ever baptized 
anybody": 

6. It makes the Christian system far more rigid, and attaches 
far more value and importance to outward forms than the 
Jewish system did. 

This has been seen in that though circumcision was com- 
manded with this declaration. Gen. xvii. 11th, 14th verses. 

' L\jid the imcu'CuiQclsed rQan-child whose flesh of his foreskin is nor 
chcim2ci5>ed, that soni shall l3e cut off from his people : he hath broken 
my covenant — '" 

Yet Josh. V. 5. 6. "Xow all the people that came out were ehcumcised 
but aU the people that v:ere bom in the wilderness by the way as they came 
forth out of Egypt, tliem they had not circumcised. For the children of 
Israel walked forty years in the wilderness, tiU ail the people that were 
men of war, which came out of Egypt, were constmied, because they obeyed 
not the voice of the Loed : unto whom the Lord sware that He would not 
show them the land, which the Loed sware imto their fathers that he 
would aive us, a land that tloweth Avith milk and honev." 

Aaron did not eat. Lev. x. 16-22 : Eldad and Medad did not 
literally obey God.^um. xi. 24-26: David ate the shew bread 
Matt. xii. 4: Abraham bv intention alone obeved God, offer- 
iug Isaac: indeed, the whole scheme of Redemption goes on 
the plan of will for deed, through a substitute which con- 
stitutes repentance. The Baptist system repudiates all that in 
its blind intolerance. It then has its succession — the so-called 
chain of connected baptisms running from apostolic times 
until to-dav. throuoli a host of sects, amono- them the Massa- 
lians, a sect separated from Catholics on matters as repulsive 
to Baptists as Catholics in the main, and their baptism from 
them — Montanists, are another link, a people whose taith 
was excessively pernicious, holding among other heresies that 
a vian was the promised Spirit. The Xovationists began with 
Xovatian Avhose baptism was by sprinkling, as Dr. Graves will 
not deny. He has quoted it during this debate. The Donatists 
like all these parties. Avere Catholics, save one sect who 
went off before* the title was taken. All these parties had 
bishops, priests, etc., in the Catholic sense, and baptized infants. 
They run in through Manichseans, a horrid sect, who rejected 
all baptism, holding that "water, man, and physical elements 
w^ere created bv the devil. All these details we grave vou 



The Lord's Supper. 907 

before and need not repeat them now. They run this wild 
Baptist myth in through Paulicians, Paternines, Waldenses, 
Albigenses, Leonists, Berengarians, Picards, Arnoldists, Gies. 
iii. 51 : Ford, 101, Petrobussians, Henricians, Lollards, Wick- 
liffites, Hussites, German Anabaptists, and all these parties. 

We now arraign the Baptists as responsible for untold evils 
in the church, l^o wonder they have been rather the pets of 
Rome. But for the Anabaptists, the reformation would have 
swept over all Europe, carried Spain, Portugal, France, Italy, 
in its onward sweep, and blotted out that bane of civiliza- 
tion — the man of sin. We owe it to these misguided fanatics 
that Rome overshadows the welfare and threatens the peace 
of Europe to-day. On the contrary, the advance of 
Methodism was the signal of triumph, of glory and of 
good will. She found Protestantism prostrate, civilization 
dying, and the Baptist church a corpse. She raised up the 
one, revived the other, and took the dead corpse into warm 
and sympathetic proximity to her young and vigorous heart, 
and warmed it into life. Ours is a record of which a people 
may well be proud. We warred on no church. We assailed 
no denomination. We invited the co-operation of all God's 
people. We never sought to pull down, but to build up. At 
the sound of her bugle, at the call of her trumpet, an army 
of heroes sprang to the front, and marshaled themselves into 
line. Such is Methodism — organized Christianity — moral 
forces wielded by a muscular Christianity, not by blue ribbons 
and red tape insipidity. — \^Time out. 



THE 

GREAT CARROLLTON DEBATE. 

FOURTH PROPOSITION. 

THE METHODIST EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT CARROLLTON, MISSOURI, 

POSSESSES THE SCRIPTURAL CHARACTERISTICS OP A CHURCH 

OF CHRIST, OR A BRANCH OF THE SAME. 

DR. DITZLER Affirms. 
DR. GRAVES Denies. 



[Dr. Ditzler's Opening Speech.] 

GrENTLEMEN MODERATORS : — It will sound Strangely in the 
ears of intelligent people everywhere, that we should be called 
UDon to affirm such a proposition for serious discussion. A 
hundred years hence the discussion of to-day will be read with 
the same curious interest with which we read of the witch- 
craft at Boston, at Salem ; — ^of the superstitions that sent Mrs. 
Hutchinson to the wilderness, and that made Tam O'Shanter 
a rich and readable burlesque. It is a shame and disgrace to 
the Baptists of the South and West that such superstitions 
and bigotry should cling to them in the last quarter of the 
nineteenth century. But I have learned by personal observa- 
tion, as well as reading, that the great body of Southern and 
Western Baptists profess to believe the negative of this propo- 
sition. Dr. Graves is pre-eminently the soul, the inspiration, 
and, of course, the ablest defender of their position. 

This brings up the question of the church, already disposed 
of on Infant Baptism. A vast amount of matter there in my 
first two speeches, would belong here, but need not be re- 
peated, yet remembered and accepted as a basis— -the point of 
departure. 



910 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

We shall present our argument ther.. Tvith the soUd and 
riever assailed facts already put in evidence in the second 
proposition, addresses 1 and 2. accepted by you. my auditors ; 

and then proceed with the following facts : 

1. G-od has a people whom we call" The ITniversal Church" 
— all in heaven and earth who are in a saved relation to God, 
throu2:h Christ — who. were thev to die as thev are, would be 
saved. Heb. xi. entire, compared ^vith xii: 1, 2. 22; Eph. iii: 
14: Eev. vii: 9-U : xxi: 2.3. 1. 

2. The invisible church on earth — all who are in a saved re- 
lation to him — whose names are in the book of life. This 
was elaborately proved under the second proposition. "We 
add the following additional proofs ; 

1. The Xew Testament everywhere shows that all aliens, or 
sinners, are made members of his church by virtue of spirit- 
ual renovation, in the act of which they are adopted into his 
familv. household. Avhich is the church of God. ili. The 
church is thus designated as a Flock. Sheepfold, with Christ 
as Shepherd; and all who have their spiritual food, protection 
and safety in him, are recognized as equally of this fold. John 
x: 1-16 : Acts xx: 2S-29, ^c. Christ is the d'jor, .Jolin x: 9, 
not baptism. (2i. The church is represented as the body, 
Christ the head, and all who come into it from the state of 
aliens come in by the adopting Spirit. Eph. i: 22-23 ; Col. i: 
18:24; Eom. xii: 4-5 ; Eph. iv: 16. ^c.tell you that Christ is 
the head of the bodv. the church — head over all things to the 
church, which is his body. All who are in fellowship, in 
communion with Christ, spiritually, are of this body. But 
how do these parties come into this body, his church? 1 Cor. 
xii: 13 — •• Ey one Spirit are we all baptized into One body." 

8. 1 Cor. x: 17 shows the same truth. "'For we, being 
many, are one bread ^one element unbroken}, and one body: 
for we are all partakers of that one bread''" — Christ. See ver- 
ses 2 and 3, also. All who spiritually partake of Christ the 
bread from heaven. John vi: 4S. 50 and 51, all who eat 
thereof bv faith are one bread, one undivided church — one 
body — one family, one household, one sheepfold. 

4. The church is represented as embracing all who are 



The Church of Christ. 911 

sanctified or saved. 1 Cor. 1-2 — " with all that m every place 
call upon the name of Jesus Christ," " all who are sanctified 
m Christ Jesus." They are of the church. 

5. The church is called household, family, and all who are 
regenerated, born of the Spirit, are thereby adopted into the 
same, 1 Tim. iii: 15 — "in the household (ozVjo) of God, which 
is the church of the living God." How are we brought into 
this household? Eph. ii: 19-22, tells us we come into the 
household of God, as foreigners, aliens, — into the building, 
the holy temple " through the Spirit." — All who ^'walk in 
the steps of that faith of our father Abraham which he had, 
being 3^et uncircumcised," Rom. iv: 12, show that no or- 
dinance, or outward form, makes us members of Christ's 
family or church, but faith in Christ. Hence the oneness of 
the church consists only in those fundamental principles that 
are in all ages, to all responsible moral beings, the condition 
of salvation, and hence never change — are unity — one. Hence 
Rom. viii: 14, " As many as are led by the Spirit of God, they 
are the sons of God. For ye * * have received the Spirit 
of adoption. * * * The Spirit itself beareth witness with 
our spirit that we are the children of God, heirs of God." 
Here all who have the Spirit are sons, children, heirs of God, 
joint heirs with Christ. But God's children, sons, heirs, 
adopted, are his household, family. But he says the family, 
the household of God, is the church of the living God ; 1 Tim. 
iii: 15. He says the flock of God, is the church; Acts xx: 
28-29, We could extend these arguments almost endlessly, 
but these are enough, and such as Dr. Graves will never at- 
tempt to answer. 

The truth of this is conceded by all enlightened Baptists of 
the East, and all of a former day. Prof. Ripley, who has no 
superior in the Baptist Church in Europe or America, says: 
"Those communities of Christians who have abandoned the 
primitive practice in respect to baptism, are churches, not in a 
state of order, so far as the positive ordinances "^ * are con 
cerned." Baptist Library, vol. iii: p. 214. 

John Bunyan : " The whole church. This word compre- 
hendeth all the parts of it, even from Adam to the very world's 



912 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

end. * '^ Isow that baptism makes a man a member of this 
church I do not yet believe, nor can jou show me why I should." 
Complete works, 879. That is and has always been ex- 
actly my position. So Roger Williams, Clarke, Backus, 
Benedict and all the best scholars of the Baptist church 
always held, and all the best historians among them know that 
all this parade about succession, that old woman they have 
hid in the wilderness, not the pure one of Scripture, is a bas- 
tard, a fiction, a myth, without one word of reason. Scripture, 
history, truth, or fact in its favor — gotten up by such pernicious 
and vicious writers as Orchard, who falsifies all history, mis- 
quotes all records and facts as wholes, distorts,and makes all his- 
tory a huge burlesque, to impose on the ignorant. Even Bene- 
dict, after a course he is ashamed of, never puts it in his own 
hand, but in quotations, and Ford, Dr. Cramp and all, have to 
fall back on " principles" as the only reliable thing at last. 

2. We next show that church existence, hence church one- 
ness — unity — consists not of, depends not on, ordinances, ritu- 
alistic services — never did — never can. 

1. It consists not in a succession of ministers in lineal con- 
nection or dependence. 

(1) For ages the head of the family was priest, or minister, 
even till Moses. Each fatherwas a priest,wasthe expounder of 
verity, minister. (2) From Moses there was a regular line of min- 
isters, yet often interrupted by violence, conquests, invasions, 
civil wars. Along beside it, (3) God raised up extra minis- 
ters, the prophets, taken from the fields of labor, the vine- 
yard, the pasture or the plow. Here is no lineal connec- 
tion. The call or appointment of heaven is sufficient. (4) 
John the Baptist and Christ are vastly different in their 
ministry, and all tlie sacred writers, Matthew, Mark, Luke, 
John, Paul, Peter, take special pains to point it out with em- 
phasis — one baptizes with water — the other with the Spirit — 
with fire, telling of purity. One baptizes " unto repentance." 
The other baptizes those who have repented, believed on him 
— " thoroughly purges his floor." This brings out the fact, 

2. That it consists not in ordinances. 

(1) This has been established already by establishing the 



The Church of Christ. 913 

opposite truth — that the Spirit adopts us iiito the church, 
when it begets in us the principle of souship. (2) For over 
two thousand years there is no record of outward ordinances 
as a ritualistic service, circumcision being the first recorded 
afi commanded, in Abraham's day. Gen. xvii: 11-14. (3) 
It was purely symbolic. .Gen. xvii: 11; Rom. ii: 28-29; iv: 
11; Col. ii: 11, &c. (4) Circumcision was suspended forty years 
ill tne wilderness, no one circumcised. Yet the word church, 
is constantly applied to them during that time by Jehovah. 
So Stephen, Acts vii: 38. (5) When baptism came in, Mo- 
ses baptizes Aaron and his sons, but who baptized Moses ? 
Who baptized John the Harbinger? (6) In the Mosaic day, 
the ordinances came in gradually through a series of years 
— many years. Was it no church till all these were com- 
pleted, or on what proportion or part of them did the exis- 
tence of the church depend ? (7) So as to Christ. He 
gradually reformed, restored, built up, purified, elevated. 
The Lord's Supper came in before crucifixion. Bap- 
tism ordained forty days after the resurrection. Gen- 
tiles brought in eight to ten years after •Pentecost. Cer- 
tain meats, customs, old ordinances done away years after 
Gentiles are brought in. Acts xv and xxi entire, with Gal. 
iii entire. The apostolic church practiced infant circumcision 
during the entire apostolic age. Here we see how gradually 
changes all came in. Paul was found " purified in the temple" 
as late in apostolic history as Acts xxiv: 18. All these facts, 
that could be multiplied indefinitely, utterly destroy and 
grind into dust all Baptist and red tape theories of church ex- 
istence. 

2. Hence church existence depends alone upon the regen- 
eration and adoption of aliens into God's spiritual family 
of the saved, they are added to the Lord — the Lord adds them. 
Acts ii: 47; v: 14. And its oneness consists in the unchange- 
ableness of the principles by which people are saved. 

The essential principles of salvation have been the same, 
always, since the fall, and have reigned through all dispensa- 
tions, and constitute the oneness of God's church in all time- 
through all dispensations. See further, Gen. vi: 3-5 ; xv: 6, 

57- 



914 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

with Rom. iv: 8-11; Is. liii: 4, 5, 6, 10; Ps. li entire; Is. i. 
16-18 ; iv: 4 ; Heb. x: 38-39, continued to xi entire, xii : I, 2, 
22; 1 Tim. i: 5 ; 1 Pet. i: 9; Rom. xiii: 13; xiv: 17.18 ; with 
1 Cor. x: 2-3; Deut. vi: 4-5 ; Mark xii : 28-33, &c., &c. 

8. In the Old and I^ew Testaments, any number of those 
parties who are in a saved relation- to God, could, and did as- 
sociate themselves together, organize themselves, it you pre- 
fer, unite together, and worship, administer and receive the 
proper ordinances of God's appointment, and they were a visi- 
ble church, a congregation. To such association of them, 
Christ refers : Matt, xvii, 17-20 ; the apostle John, Epistle 3d, 
verses 9 and 10; James ii, 2, etc. 

-N^ow, baptism does not initiate into, or make the parties 
members of, such local congregation. 

1. The Bible nowhere teaches it. Let the place be found. 
Of what local church was Philip, and of what local congrega- 
tion did his baptism make the traveling Eunuch a member? 
Did Anan:as make Pual a member of his congregation when 
he baptized Paul, or Peter constitute Cornelius and his house 
members of the chu"^ch at Jernsalera, or of Joppa, where he 
was lodging? Of wdiat local congregation did the Baptist 
make Christ a member, or John the multitudes of his baptism ? 
You see how infinitely absurd the Baptist position. 

The voluntary action of a man, and the concurrence of the 
congregation, constitute the man a member of the church or 
local congregation ; not the baptism. This is effected in most 
cases among all churches of the land, by letter in many cases; 
by a vote in absence of a letter often, he applying, they thns 
concurring. Let us suppose a case, to see how absurd is the 
initiatory theory. Suppose some member who stands high in 
your church accuses a promient member of vicious, wicked 
words, and deeds. He is arraigned, tried, expelled. Is he 
now a member of the local, visible church? 'No, he is ex- 
pelled — is clear out. So we find 3 John, verses 9 and 10 — 
one who is ever wicked, expelled the good members by his 
vast influence. Well, now the accuser after a year or so dies, 
confesses he lied — slandered the one you expelled. The ex- 
pelled man remains pious, all proofs thereof are evident. What 



The Church of Christ. 915 

do you do ? By a unanimous vote you restore him — make 
liim a member of your church — of the local congregation. We 
could explode, by many facts and practices well known, all 
these old dark age superstitions about initiatory rites, etc. We 
hold this to be the great underlying principle of our church 
action — that as they are members of Christ's invisible church, 
are in being, so they can assemble, baptize, administer the 
Lord's Supper, ordain ministers, etc. All churches at some 
period have acted on this principle — Catholic, English, Epis- 
copal, Baptist always did, till this wild heresy got into the 
heads of a part of their leaders, Methodists, Lutherans, Pres- 
byterians, Disciples. It is the truth they all fall back on at 
last. Baptism is no more necessary as an absolute condition 
of membership, than is the Lord's Supper. Both are to be ad- 
ministered rightly, properly. To refuse any of our important 
or solemn duties is to rebel against God and forfeit his favor 
and consequently our spiritual fellowship, wherein we lose the 
grand right and titles to visible or outward fellowship, mem- 
bership. In this position, Revelation, Reason, universal and 
necessary Practice all harmonize, and in no other. Hence, 
this congregation of Methodists in Carrollton are a part, a 
branch of Christ's church. 

They are all baptized, even if it depended on that, by the 
primitive, apostolic mode — all is right any way. 

Let us glance now into Apostolic history, and see whether 
our view is supported, or the congregational views of the Bap- 
tists, together with a repudiation and destruction of the old 
church, with the organization of a radically different one. 

1. From Moses till Christ, the church was not congregation- 
al. This will not be questioned. While they, just as Presby- 
terians, Episcopalians, Methodists had their visible assemblies, 
synagogues and temple worship the church was a unity — one. 
See Numbers, xxvii, 15-28 ; e. g. 

2. Christ and John found it thus. 

(1) Let it be pointed out now where John ever organized 
separate churches ; (2) on a congregational basis ; (3) separate 
from the Jews. Dr. Graves has admitted (Prop. 2.) that John 
never organized a church — that in fact none existed in his day. 



yi6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. With these facts settled, where did Christ, in his da}^, or- 
ganize and officer congregations? Find it if you can. Ils'o ef- 
fort has been made, not even where infant baptism demanded 
that snch effort be made if it could be, to get rid of the one- 
ness of the chnrch. Well does Bunyan, the great Baptist, 
say, "John gathered no particular chnrch." Complete Works, 
829, "Reason of my Practice." I^ay, Christ uses the term 
church once in its full sense, Matt, xvi, 18; twice in its limi- 
ted sense as a local congregation, Matt, xviii. 17. During all 
Christ's sojourn he never organized those Avho believed on 
him; those whom he pardoned and blessed, into separate ex- 
istence as churches or congregations any more than did John. 

4. In apostolic times the facts are plain — the records simple. 
(1) All who "finally at Christ's crucifixion, had rejected him, 
who had failed to receive him, 'they were put on a level with 
all Gentiles, from the dav of the crucifixion and resurrection, 
all were placed on a level, (Eph. ii, 16 and 22; Rom. iii, 1 and 
9; xi, entire; Acts ii, 39; x, 34 and 35), and had to come in 
as all Gentiles did. (2) Acts i, 23-26, as a whole, the apostles 
elect one in the place of Judas, and not on the congrega- 
tional basis. They ignore such a thing, know^ not of it. (3) 
Acts ii, 4-11, that great body from every nation under heaven, 
on whom with the apostles, the Holy Spirit falls, to " them " 
the three thousand converts, verse 41, "are added." Where 
is the new congregation, with officers, etc., appointed. They 
"continued in the temple," verse 46, "daily." (4) Acts vi, 
1-4. "The multitude of the disciples" were called in with 
" the twelve " apostles to look out seven proper deacons " whom 
we may appoint." Here is an utter opposition to all congrega- 
tional ideas. 

Instead of each separate congregation electing its deacons, 
etc., here the apostles all, and the brethren as a whole do it. 
and "appoint" them. (5) So Acts viii, 6-8, 12-14, the apos- 
tles that were at Jerusalem send Peter and John to Samaria 
to Superintend matters, on the same principle. (6) Acts xi, 1, 
2, 5, 18, 22, the apostles and brethren that were in Judea, 
take charsre and co2:nizance of Peter's course in the house of 
Cornelius; x, 38-47. (7) Philip (Acts viii, 38) is on the same 



The Church of Christ. 917 

principle. (8) Acts xv, 1, 3, 19, 22, 24, 28, 36, show that the 
iipostles and elders at Jerusalem legislate for the whole body 
of congregations. So we could trace it all the way through. 
The true position is, therefore, to avoid in church government 
central power on the one hand, and mobocracy, i. e., no gov- 
ernment but the overbearing, undefined, unrestrained power 
of a majority, unchecked by limitations and resti^ictions, on 
the other. 

Methodism has most beautifully, like the apostolic church, 
taken this happy middle ground. Hence her grand success. 

IV. We next refer to those Scriptures that tell us " by their 
fruits ye shall know them." By this shall they be known as 
His disciples. This leads us to trace the origin of the Meth- 
odist church. To do this we must take a correct view of the 
religious and spiritual condition of England and the American 
colonies in the eighteenth century. After the long civil wars 
of Europe in the seventeenth century, the Protestant churches 
exhausted themselves in the fierce conflicts of half a century 
to a century. In the civil conflicts under Charles I. and 
Cromwell, in which Presbyterians, Episcopalians and Indepen- 
dents mutually destroyed each other — the age of Charles II 
came on in 1661 — '° a period of wild and desperate dissolute- 
ness followed." 

The age of C/haiies II came on. " A period of wild and desperate disso- 
luteness followed. ..... In London the outbreak of debaucliery 

was appalling. The character of the di'ama became conformed to the 
character of the patrons." " All professions of piety were treated by the 
rule of courtesy." It was doubted by the leaders of faishion and by the 
pet poets whether there was such a thing as virtue in the world. Macau- 
lay says : ^ ' Profligacy became a test of orthodoxy and loyalty — a qualifi- 
cation for rank and office. A deep and general taint infected the morals 
of the most iufluential classes, and spread itself through every province of 
letters. Poetry inflamed the passions ; philosophy undermined the princi- 
ples ; divinity itself, inculcating an abject reverence for the court, gave ad- 
ditional effect to its licentious examples." " In the fashionable libertinism 
there is a hard, cold ferocity, an imxDudence, a lowness, a dirtiness, which 
can be paralleled onlj^ among the heroes and heroines of the filthy and 
lieartless literature which encouraged it." The dramatists of the Bestora- 
tion, 1660-1688, far exceeded Beaumont and Fletcher in wanton innuendoes 
mid allusions. The age of Louis XIV in France was not more depraved 
t]ian that of Charles II in England. " They everywhere confounded free 
a-.oiiLal vivacity and the coarsest licentiousness. ...... After ail 



9i8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

we know of the licentiousness of manners under Charles II, we are still 
lost in astonishment at the audacious ribaldry of Wycherly and Congreve. 
Decency is not merely violated in the grossest manner in single speeches, 
and frequently in the whole plot ; but in the character of the rake, the 
fashionable debauchee, a moral skeiDticism is direcily preached up, and 
marriage is the constant subject of their ridicule. ' Such was the corrupt- 
ness of the times when Protestantism had to emerge from the Papacy. 
These writers elevated then* genius to the work of clothing those women, 
whose hcentiousness was at once revolting and unblushing, in the most 
attractive vntues, as possessed writh every grace of demeanor, beautj^, wit 
and taste. In " The Plaindealer," " Coimtry Wife,'" " The Old Bachelor,''- 
" LoA'e forliove," and " The Way of the World," we behold aU these dark 
pictures. They fill the x^ages of Wycherly, Congreve, Vanbrugh, Farcjuhar^ 
Dm'fey, Dr^^den, Gibber, Steele, Etherage and SmoUet. The langTiage of 
these men is too indecent to be quoted on the questions in hand ; but the 
THornl that closes one of the above plays ends thus : 

"What rugged ways attend the noon of life ! 
Our sun declines, and with what anxious strife — 
What pain we tug tnat galling, load — a wife .'" 

The moral of "Love for Love " is — 

' ' The mhacle of to-day is that we find 
A lover true^, not that a woman's kind." 

It was no better in other parts of Em-ope. The wTitings of Calderou^^ 
Lope de Vega and Cervantes abundantly confirm this. Ethrage's " She 
Would if Slie Could," Dry den's translation of the Fom'th Book of Lucre- 
tius, and Wycherly 's "Country Wife," received the imprimatur of the 
licenser. And these were the very days when the Wesley s were begin- 
ning then assaults ux)on an idle priesthood and a d^^ing Chmx-h. Wycher-- 
ley died, 1715; Congreve died, 1729; Methodism began, 1739. Schlegel 
writes : " It is a remarkable phenomenon the causes of which are deserv- 
ing of enquiry that the JEnglish 7iat ion, hi the last half of the eighteenth 
century — the very days when the Wesleys were in the zenith of their zeal 
and power — passed ail at once from the most opx:)osite way of thinking 
to an almost scruiDulous strictness of manners in social conversation, in 
romances, in plays and in the plastic art." 

This state of morals was bad enough ; but, as might have been inferred,, 
to this state of morals and morbid mactivity the morals and teachings of 
the clergy conformed. This is seen in all the literatm'e just reviewed. 
Preaching was a cold, lifeless iDerformance. It had no feeling — no emo- 
tion. It was without earnestness and without symx3athy. They denied 
the fundamental principles of Christianity. Natural rehgion was their 
favorite study. Colhns and Tindal denounced Christianity as priestcraft ; 
Whiston pronounced the miracles of Christ Jewish impositions ; WoUasten 
declared them to be allegories; Toland assaulted Christianity and con- 
tended for Pantheism ; Lord Herbert, Mandeville, Earl Shaftsbiuy (1713) 
Morgan Chubb, DodweU and Bolingbroke, all wrote with vigor in favor 
of the wildest theories. In 1710, the year after Wesley began to preach 
as a Reformer, Edelmann and Reimarus introduced Deism into Germany,. 



The Church of Christ. 919 

where it developed into rationalism, and has been productive of untold 
harm, threatening to overthrow Christianity where the Reformation be- 
gan. Knutzen and Dippel assisted in this fanatical assault on religion. 
Arianism and Socinianisni were openly avowed and defended by such 
men as Priestly, Samuel Clark and Whiston. In Rousseau's day the 
Geneva divines refused to answer whether Jesus Christ were God. As 
late as 1790, the words "in Christ" — eiichristoo — were reduced to a mere 
profession of the doctrine of Christ. In 1817 the venerable Society ot 
Pastors enacted a law that every minister would be required, at his install- 
ation, to promise that he would not discuss certain principles of Calvin- 
istic orthodoxy. This shows how distasteful were many of the principles 
held forth by the Church. 

Even the most rigid churchmen present the state of morals among the 
clergy as most deplorable. Bishop Burnet, in the seventieth year of his 
age, says : ''I cannot look on without the deepest concern, when I see 
the imminent ruin hanging over this Church, and, by consequence, over 
the whole Reformation. The outward state of things is black enough, 
God knows ; but that which- heightens my fears rises chiefly from the 
inward state from which we have unhappily fallen." Of the clergy he 
sa3"s : "Our ember weeks are the burden and grief of my life." He says 
the ministers were unacquainted with the Scriptures, and did not even read 
them. Nay, he declares they " w^ere the greatest strangers to the easiest 
part of knowledge," and never "read any one good book." Watts says: 
"There was a general decay of vital religion in the hearts and lives of 
men;" that this declension of piety and virtue was common to Dissent- 
ers and churchmen, and that it was a general matter of mournful obser- 
vation among all who lay the cause of God to heart. He urged that all 
should do what they could /or the recovery of a dying religion in the ivorld. 
It was complained that "vital religion was lost out of the world." Dr. 
Guiso said : "The present modish turn of religion looks as if we had no 
need of a mediator. .... The religion of nature makes up the darling 
topics of our age ; and the rehgion of Jesus is valued .... only so 

far as it carries on the light of nature All that is restrictively 

Christian, or that is peculiar to Christ, .... is waived, and banished, 
and despised!" Archbishop Seeker, a man venerable and learned, com- 
plains that, " In this we cannot be mistaken; that an open and professed 
disregard has become, through a variety of unhappj^ causes, the distin- 
guishing character of the present age." Again : " Such are the dissolute- 
ness and contempt of principles in the higher part of the world, and the 
profligacy, intemperance and fearlessness of committing crimes in the 
lower, as must, if this torrent of impiety stop not, become absolutely fatal. 
Christianity^ is ridiculed and railed at with very little reserve, and the 
teachers of it without any at all." It was taken for granted that Chris- 
tianity was fictitious, and that the subject was no longer open to discus- 
sion. It was a " principle subject for mirth and ridicule." Southey, and 
Leighton, Archbishop of Glasgow, 1684, agree with the above, and declare 
that the Church was a fair carcass without a spirit. Taylor, a violent antag- 
onist of Methodism in the Ei)iscopal Church, admits that when Wesley 



920 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

rose, the English Church was "an ecclesiastical system under which the 
people of England had lapsed into heathenism, or a state hardly to be dis- 
tinguished from it ;" and that '' the languishing nonconformity of the last 
century — Dissenters — was rapidly in com'se to be found nowhere but in 
I)ooks." Hannah Moore writes in the same strain. Some idea maybe 
formed when one of the brightest intellects of the age, and a Dean of the 
Church,- employed his time in writing the adventures of Gulliver. Such 
ecclesiastics as Dean Sv/ift and Sterne were given up wholly to wit and 
ribaldry. These witnesses were not of the Puritan stamp. It is the com- 
plaint of those of whose want of piety Puritans would have complained. 
Of the idleness of the Episcopal clergj^ and then' utter neglect of the 
Irish, Macaulay writes : "The English conquerors, meanwhile, neglected 
all legitimate means of conversion. No care was taken to provide the 
vanquished nation with instructors capable of making themselves mider- 
stood. No translation of the Bible was put forth in the Erse language. 
The government contented itself with setting up a vast hierarchy of 
Protestant Archbishops, Bishops and Rectors, who did nothing, and who, 
for domg nothing, were paid out of the spoils of the Church." They passed 
their lives in remote manor houses, drinking ale and playing at shovel- 
board. 

At this very time, when infidelity was everywhere triumphant in every 
form, active and vigilant, Cathohcism was speedily and triumphantly re- 
covering her loss, and from the wounds inflicted by the Reformation. In 
1559 St. Xavier went to India and estabhshed the Romish religion. In 
South America they had missionaries among the Spanish along with 
Pizarro. Then- priests were to be found following the conquests of every 
adventmer, and in the wigwams of the savages of both North and South 
America. They spared no pains — then* zeal never flagged. In 1738 Igiia- 
tius Liguori set up Jesuitism in its fullest proportions. In addition to the 
ginipowder plot, the edict of Nantes was revoked, 1685, and the memora- 
ble slaughter of St. Bartholomew, 1572, and the long and almost trium- 
phant efforts of the Charleses and the Jameses shov/ how insecure was 
Protestantism. At the breaking out of the rebellion, in 1715, the great 
Francis Atterbmy, once Dean of Christ Church, then* Bishop and Proloc- 
utor, and who, but for the fall of his party, would have been Ai'chbishop of 
Canterbury, refused to sign the paper in which the Bishops of the province 
of Canterbury declared their attachment to the succession as against the 
usiu'per of the infamous house of Stuarts. On the contrary, they tried to 
have a James III proclaimed king. 

Not only was there, at this time, a much more intense zeal among the 
Catholics than among the Protestants, but the whole zeal of the Cathohcs 
^vas directed against the Protestants, while almost the whole zeal of the 

Protestants was du'eeted against each other The whole force 

of Rome was, therefore, effective for the purpose of carrying on the war 

against the Reformation On the other hand, the force which 

ought to have fought the battle of the Reformation was exhausted in civil 
conflict. While Jesuit preachers, Jesuit confessors, Jesuit teachers of 
youth; overspread Europe, eager to expand every faculty of their minds 



The Church of Christ. 921 

and every dro]D of their blood in the cause of their Church, Protestant 
doctors were confuting, and Protestant rulers were punishing sectaries 

who were just as good Protestants as themselves In England 

the jails were tilled with men, who, though zealous for the Reformation, 
did not exactly agree with the court in all points of disciplme and doc- 
trine. . ; . . The Irish people might, at that time, have been 
reclaimed from Popery, at the expense of half the zeal and activity which 
Whitgift employed in oppressing Puritans and Martin Marprelate in 
reviling bishops. 

As the CathoUcs, in zeal and unity, had a great advantage over the 
Protestants, so had they also an infinitely superior organization- In 
truth, Protestantism, for aggressive purposes, had no organization at all. 
The Reformed Churches were mere national churches. The Church of 
England existed for England ulone. It was an institution purely local^ as 
the Court of Common Pleas, and was utterly without any, machinery ioi for- 
eign operations. The Church of Scotland, in the same manner ^ existed for 
Scotland alone. The operations of the Catholic Church, on the other 
hand, took in the whole tvorld. 

. . . Our Island — England — did not send out a single missionary or 
a single instructor of youth to the scene of the great spiritual war. Not a 
single seminary was established here for the purpose of furnishing a sup- 
ply of such persons to foreign countries. On the other hand, Germany, 
Hungary and Poland were filled with able and active Catholic emissaries 
of Spanish or Italian birth, and colleges for the instruction of the Northern 
youth were founded at Rome. The spiritual force of Protestantism was a 
mere local militia, which might be useful [a.i rome) in case of an invasion, 
but could not be used abroad, and could, therefore, make no conquests," 

If the times from Elizabeth, 1559, to the close of the seventeenth cen- 
tury were depraved, those of the reigns of George II and George III were 
no better. The times of Eouis XIV, in France, produced a Voltaire, a 
Volney and a Rousseau, and the times of George III produced a Gibbon, 
a Hume, a Bolingbroke and a Tom Paine. W. M. Thackeray, in his 
Four Georges, gives a sketcii of tliose days: "The parsons at Oxford 
were double-dealing and dangerous as any priest out of Rome." He tells of 
''Rev. Mr. Hoadly cringing from one bishopric to another," in the days of 
George II. " Selwin has a chaplain and a parasite — one Dr. Warner." 
He speaks of " all the foul pleasures and gambols in which he ( Warner j 

reveled (as) played out This worthy clergjanan takes pains 

to teU us that he does not believe in his religion He comes 

home, "after a hard day's christening," as he says, and writes to his 
patron before sitting down to whist and partridges for supper. He is a 
boisterous, uproarious parasite. .... He is inexpressibly mean — a 
tender-hearted knave Was infidelity endemic, and corrup- 
tion in the air ? Around the young king .... lived a court society 
as dissolute as our country evtr saw, George the Second's bad morals bore 
their fruit in George the Third's early years." He said Johnson was the 
support of the Church during that day, and "better than Avhole benches 
of bishops." Of George III, cotemporary of Wesley, he says: "The 



92 2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

theatre was always his dehght. His bishops and clergy used to attend it, 
thinking it no harm to appear where that good (?) man was seen." 
When we try to recall social England, we must fancy it playing at cards 
for many hours every day. The custom has well-nigh gone out among us 
now [Why?], but fifty years ago it was general — Hftj years before that 
(Wesley's rise) almost universal in the country. Seymour said, to be ig- 
norant of gaming, was considered low-bred. "Books were not fit arti- 
cles for drawing rooms, old ladies used to say. 'The only books I know,' 
said old Lady Marlborough, 'are men and cards.'" Even the noncon- 
formist clergy looked not unkindly on the practice of playing cards. As 

for the High Church parsons, they all played, bishops and all 

Their majesties, the Prince of Wales and the Princesses, went to the Chapel 
Royal preceded by the heralds. . . . The king and prince made offer- 
ing at the altar, of gold, frankincense, myrrh, etc. At night their majes- 
ties played at hazard with the nobility for the benefit of the groom porter, 
and it is said the king won sixty guineas." "Lady Yarmouth sold a 
bishopric to a clergyman for five thousand pounds. She betted him five 
thousand (£5,000) pounds that he would be made a bishop, and he lost, 
and paid her. Was he the only prelate of his time led up by such hands 
for consecration? As I peep into George the Third's St. James', I see 
crowds of cassocks rustling uj) the back stairs of the ladies of the court ; 
stealthy clergy slipping purses into their laps ; the godless old king yawn- 
ing under his canopy in his chapel royal as the chaplain before him is 
discoursing. .... While the chaplain is preaching the king is chat- 
tering in German, almost as lond as the preacher — so loud that the cler- 
gyman. Dr. Jeny, absolutely burst out crying in the pulpit 

No wonder that the clergymen were corrupt and indifferent. . . . No 
wonder that skeptics multiplied and morals degenerated. . . . No won- 
der that Whitfield cried out in the wilderness — that Wesley quitted the 
insulted temple to pray on the hill-side. Which is the sublimer spectacle 
— the good John Wesley surrounded by his congregations of miners 
at the pit's mouth, or the queen's chaplains mumbling through their 
morning office in their ante-room .... with the door opened into 
the adjoining chamber, Avhere the queen is dressing, talking scandal to 
Lord Hervey, or uttering sneers at Lady Sufl^blk, who is kneeling with a 
basin at her mistress' side ? I am seared, I say as I look around upon 
society — at this king, at these courtiers, at these bishops^ at this flouting 
vice and levity." 

Such was the condition of the European world in general, 
and of England in particular and her American colonies, when 
(1739) God raised up and thrust out the Wesleys and their 
coadjutors to save Protestantism, to save society, and restore 
Christianity. Remember that these are not Methodist author- 
ities we have quoted — not one of them. They are standards the 
world over in their departments as writers, in difterent 
churches, and some of no churchy 



The Church of Christ. 923 

But what bad the Baptists done ? They were organized in 
England as early as 1608, in Wales by 1646, in the American 
colonies in 1639. In Germany all they, as such Baptists did, 
was to raise civil war, insurrection, anarchy and stop the refor- 
mation, paralyze Luther's bands and swell the shout of the 
Catholics all over Europe. They failed utterly till this day in 
Germany. In England they prospered in the seventeenth cen- 
tury for a while, but Benedict shows that they split to pieces, 
began a war on each other of the fiercest character, that resulted 
in complete ruin. 

Benedict says that in the next century, eighteenth, the Bap- 
tists were not nearly so" strong as in the preceding one. So- 
cinianism, skepticism and proscription ruined them ; each sect 
warring on the other, for they soon split up as here. 

In the American colonies though organized by Roger Wil- 
hams (1639), yet as late as 1768 there had not been organized 
a Baptist church in the states of Vermont or I^ew Hampshire, 
and only nine in Massachusetts up to 1741 ; (Backus' History-, 
vol. i. page 152). !^ot a second congregation in Vermont till 
1773. (Backus', page 158). 

Hear now Dr. Cramp, the latest standard Baptist histo- 
rian in America, p. 471. "In 1688 the Baptist denomination 
[notice that word — they are as others, only a denomination,] 
in ]^orth America comprised thirteen churches." Page 498 
he saj'S : "A sad degeneracy had taken place among the Geii- 
eral Baptists. . . Arianism had crept in among them and with 
it certain other errors. The loss oe life followed the obscu- 
ration OF light. Anti-evangelical sentiments prevailed to 
such an alarming extent that the sound hearted of that denomi- 
nation felt the necessity ot loithdrawment. They peaceably 
withdrew in the year 1770, and formed the 'New Connection 
of General Baptists'. . . The new body thus constituted is 
now the General Baptist denomination, the Arianized churches 
having fallen for the most part into Socinianism, or become 
extinct." Here is your apostolic successionism again. See 
how they come down, crushing all ])r. Graves' ideas of succes- 
sion. Their "chief men . . were Supralapsarians." What 
saved them ? Hear Dr. Cramp : "The back-sliding and cold- 



924 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

iiess had affected all religious communities in England. Had 
it not been for the merciful revival which accompanied the 
labors of Whitheld and the Wesleys, evangelical truth ^Y0uld 
have well nigh died out. Those extraordinary men were raised 
up for a glorious purpose. The effects of their ministry were 
felt by all denominations." And so he continues the account. 
"The restorative process did not take effect among the Baptists 
so soon as in some other denominations etc." p. 500. They were 
so VERY DEAD they had to hejjut in soak as it were, to enable them 
to receive profit. Once more says Cramp, p. 527. "In the 
year 1740, the immber of churches was thirty -sev en ^ with less 
than three thousand members.!! Think of it — "In North 
America," the Baptists at the end of one hundred and one yems 
number less than three thousand members II! "By their fruits 
YE SHALL KNOW THEM." Think ou thcsc thiugs^study them 
well, ye who love the truth. Notice that we rely on the unim- 
peachable statements of standard Baptist historians, not on the 
heated statements of enemies or disappointed, disaffected 
members. It was years yet before they began to flourish, as 
Benedict, Backus and Cramp show. 

Here, then, after one hundred and thirty-live years of exis- 
tence, the Baptist church was a total failure in America, and 
worse than a faihire in Europe. If a church is to be judged 
bv its fruit, by its work, by its good, look at the contrast be- 
tween Methodism and Baptistism. Why is this? If Baptists 
coukl make good their ridiculous claim to have existed so long, 
it w^ouk] be the strongest proof possible against their claim to 
be of God, since they did so little good anywhere, in any way, 
yet so much harm, till Methodism came along and saved it, 
infused new life, better principles and a better policy into them. 
Methodism found them becalmed, dead, in absolute stagnation, 
a vessel half wrecked, quite deserted of officers and passen- 
gers, her sails hanging loose in the idle winds, almost gone, 
rigging in tatters, floating about in the waters, drifting with 
the current. Methodism organized the forces of Christianity. 
She re-established Protestantism. She was the Blucher of 
Christianity, and fought the Waterloo of its modern victory. 
Catholicism had res^ained her streno;th. She bad recovered 



The Church of Christ. 925 

from the surprise and recoiled from the c'efeat of 1520 to 15:'^9. 
Everywhere she was marshaling her devoted and revengeful 
hosts to the front. Gustavus had barely saved it from annihil- 
ation, 'but that was purely a political victory and military 
salvation that could not last. 

While these disasters everywhere threatened Protestantism, 
infidelity was hovering over the land like a dark and shadowy 
demon, spreading the most baneful influences in all the forms 
of society and relationships of life. The bonds of society 
were dissolving; crimes abounded; religion was mocked ; her 
votaries held up as the butt end of a jest; theatres and the 
court of the Georges debauched the land, while a ministry of 
easy and loose virtues swayed between the foaming bowl, the 
card table and the pulpit. With these tremendous forces, 
each backed by crowned heads and bloated monarchs, the 
feeble church was in a death. — Thermopylic — struggle, when 
in the distance the soul-stirring notes of the advancing col- 
umns of Methodism were heard. They came on with more 
than the inspiring notes of the slogan of the mountains to an 
army weary, faint and in retreat. Their weapons were fresh 
from the armory of God — as the pattering rain before the tre- 
mendous torrent; as the stillness, the suspense, the rumbling 
before the upheaval of an earthquake; as the rattle of small 
arms before the roar of artillery, where the encircling bat- 
teries pour a sheet of flame and a storm of shell, of iron hail, 
on land and sky — so came in the advancing columns of Meth- 
odism to turn the waning fortunes of the church one hundred 
years ago. The blast of her bugle notes sounded a ^'forward, 
march !" along the whole wavering, retreating line, l^o column 
Avavered. ^o pause was made. The trailing colors of other 
churches were raised aloft once more. Confidence and discipline 
w^ere restored. The whole body of Protestant churches were 
aroused, inspirited and began a new career of usefulness and 
success. Toleration now began, and was put on a footing 
never thought of before. All the great engines of intellectual 
and moral power now known originated in Wesley's great 
mind, and as the fruit of his movement became a success, viz : 
The missionary movements, tract societies, the Bible Society, 



926 The Gbeat Carrolltox Debate. 

free Sabbatli schools, the itiueraut system aud the practical 
use of ]ivmiioloo:v. Evervthiiis" he touched turned to o;old of 
a religious utility. To-day, in Enoiaud, Methodism, next to 
the establishment, stands far in advance of anv other bodv in 
intellect, pulpit force, iniitience, and beyond all in moral 
power. In the United States Methodism stands far in ad- 
vance of any one sect or order of Christians, in numbers, in 
wealth, in colleges, in sittings for people, in books and litera- 
ture — niore than doubles the whole Baptist body, her nine 
divisions, in wealth and numbers of adult members. Yet she 
is onlv ninetv vears old in America as an oro;anized bodv. I 
follow the nation's statistics. The Baptists are two hundred 
and thirtv-six vears old in America. And is it possible with 
these achievements before us — having come to the perishing, 
sinking, drowning, almost strangled body of the Baptist 
church, like a passing Xoah's ark, we reached down our hand 
and took her in, like the Savior who rescued perishing Peter — 
we are now asked to affirm that such a body is a church I 
And this poor , emaciated, starved little cripple, this dwarf of 
wrinkled age and hollow, consumptive voice, whose cheeks 
were flushed with the hectic fever of decay and death, the 
chronic patient of a hundred and sixty years, rescued and 
healed by our generous hajid, now answers us •' Baptists, 
Deny!" ^ 



The Church of Christ. 927 



DR. GRAVES' FIRST REPLY. 

Mr. President .-—The question before us is, whether the local 
Methodist Society in Carrollton, known as the M. E. Church 
South, is a Scriptural Church, or branch of the same. It is not 
whether the organization known as the Baptist Church, here or 
elsewhere, is or is not. It was proposed to Elder Ditzler's 
Committee to deny that Baptist Churches possessed the Scrip-, 
tural characteristics of Gospel Churches, and they admitted in 
writing that they loere true Churches of Christ. The discussion of 
Baptist Churches therefore in no way enters into this discus- 
sion. I wish one thing to be distinctly understood, i. e.,the 
question is not whether the individual members of the Metho- 
dist Society here are Christians or not. In denying that the 
Society is a Church, I do not therefore deny that its members 
are Christians, nor in admitting it to be a true Church would it 
follow that all its members were Christians. I in no sense ad- 
mit that makino; one a Church member, therefore makes him a 
Christian. Every member of an organization may be a Chris- 
tian, but it does not follow that the organization was therefore 
a Church of Christ. Every member of the Masonic Lodge in 
this place may be a true Christian, but the Lodge is not 
therefore a Scriptural Church. I may unchurch an organi- 
zation, i. e., deny that it possesses the Scriptural characteris- 
tics of a Gospel Church and not thereby i^ricAm^/fO^m^e its mem- 
bers. If my opponent should attempt to make the impression 
upon you that I deny that you are Chrtstians because I deny 
your Society is a Church, he will pursue a course both un- 
warranted and unprincipled. There are a million of Baptists 
and millions who are not Baptists on this continent who do 
not believe that this local M. E. Society in Carrollton is a 
Church, nor is there a Methodist minister or Bishop on the 
continent who believes it, and I should think that each lay 
Methodist before me, or who mav read this discussion would 
be anxious to know the reasons why the Society of which he 



928 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

is a member is not a church — and if it is a fact, at once leave 
it and seek membership in a body that is. Before entering 
upon the discussion, I would direct the attention of all to 
the singular course Elder Ditzler has pursued in his opening 
speech. The very first thing he was in duty bound to do as 
a debatant was to define what he claimed the Scriptural char- 
acteristics of a Scriptural Church to be, and then have shown 
if he could, that the M. E. Society here, possessed these char- 
acteristics. The first rule in Hedge's Logic sa^'sthat each dis- 
putant shall define his ternis. But Elder Ditzler has not done 
so. He persistently refused to define a church, that had ordi- 
nances, during the three days we discussed the second propo- 
sition, and he has opened this without doing it. I now call 
upon him to do so when he rises, — and to give me his defin- 
ition in writing. If he declines, I here ask him in your hear- 
ing if he will accept the definition as it stands in Art. xiii. 
and xxii. of his Discipline. If he refuses to define his terms 
he refuses to discuss — he intends only to wrangle. 

My first reason for denying that the M. E. Society in this 
town is a Church is — 

I. Because the Methodist Discipline Declares that it is not. 

(1) It is well known that John Wesley who originated the 
system known as Methodism never intended to make a 
Churchy and warned his people against doing so. He de- 
nominated the religious organizations, he formed Societies, in 
all his writins^s and in his will. He certainly ouo:ht to know 
what they are. 

(2) In the address of the ten acting Bishops of the General 
Conference South 1866, they not only admit that AVesley 
called them Societies, but they themselves do so and certainly 
they, if anybody, ought to know. I quote from that address: 

Dearly Beloved Brethrex : — "We think it expedient to give you a 
brief account of the rise of Methodism, both in Europe and America. " In 
1729, two young men, in England, reading the Bible, saw they could not 
be saved without hohness, foUow^ed after it and incited others so to do. 
In 1737, they saw, likewise, that men are justified before they are sancti- 
fied ; but still holiness was their object. God then thrust them out to 
raise a holy people." 

"In the year 1766, Philip Embury, a local preacher of our Society, from. 
Ireland, began to preach in the city of New York, and formed a Society 



The Church of Christ. 929 

of his own countrymen and the citizens ; and the same year, Thomas 
Webb preached in a hired room near the barracks. About the same time 
Robert Strawbridge, a local preacher from Ireland, settled in Frederick 
county, in the State of Maryland, and preaching there, f®rmed some 
Societies." 

I DOW quote from the body of the Discipline to show you 
that throughout the land the local organizations, like this at 
Carrollton are not only not called Churches, hut always Socie- 
ties, — and that they are declared not to be Churches — that 
these are not M. E. Churches in the South, but only one body 
called the M. E. Church in all these Thirteen States of the 
South. If I do this, I have certainly disproved the proposition, 
and I v^ill have done one thing more — justified myself and all 
others who, wishing to give organizations their proper names, 
are accustomed to call all local M. E. Societies like this, Soci- 
eties. 

You will turn to Discipline and read page 9. 

" The preachers and members of our Society in general, being 
convinced that there was a great deficiency of vital religion in the Church 
of England in America", etc. — 

" The Natfire^ Design^ and General Rules of our United Societies. 

(2.) This was the rise of the United Society, first in Europe and then 
in America. Such a Society is no other than "a company of mm having 
the form and seeking the power of godliness, united in order to pray together, 
to receive the word of exhortation, and to watch over one anoth^.r in love, that they 
may help each other to work out their salvation.''^ p. 31-32. 

This body here at Carrollton then is only a company of 

men, having the form and seeking the power of Godliness — 

not a body of professed Christians — but a religious Society 

only — says the Discipline : 

(4.) "There is only one condition previously required of those who de- 
sire admission into these Societies, a "desire to flee from the wrath to 
come, and to be saved from their sins." p. 33-34. 

The J are Societies, not Churches. The Young Men's Chris- 
tian Associations in America are Societies not Churches, though 
no one can tell how soon they will assume the title, — but it 
will be an act of impiety and rebellion to Christ when they do it. 

I read again on page 38 : 

(7.) " These are the general rules of our Societies," etc. 
And on page 43 where the powers of General Conference 
are limited and the rules of local bodies like this at Carrollton 

58 



93 o The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

protected — this and all other bodies like it in the South are 

denominated Societies by T^esley's will, and by the General 

Conference itself. 

(4.) ''They shall not revoke or change the General Rnles of the United 
Societies." 

These examples certainly are enough to convince all that 
this Society is not bv TTeslev nor the Discipline recoo:nized 
as a M. E. Church, or a Church of any sort. 

But it sives two definitions bv ^^'hich aiiv claim of the kind 

is quashed. (1) The definition of a Church in Art. xiii — i. e., 

cono^res^ation of faithful men — i.e.. orofessed bdiecers at least. 

which this Society is not. etc. i2) In deteruiining the powers 

of each and every veritable Chare]', viz. 

" Eveiy particular Church may ordain, change, or abolish rites and 
ceremonies, so that all things may be dore to edification.'' p. 28. 

I am willing to rest the settlement of this question upon 
this definition alone. If this Society — for. if Wesley and 
the General Conference, and tlie Discipline call it a 
Society, I certainly may and ■should — is indeed a Church, 
the Discipline — not the AVord of God — declares it has the 
power to ordain, to change, or abolish rites and ceremonies, 
according to its ideas of propriety and edification. I now put 
these plain and pointed questions to Elder Ditzler, and de- 
mand that he answer them Avhen he rises, as he is in duty bound 
to do. Has the M. E. Society in C;:rrollton, Mo., the power in 
and of itself to ordain a new rite, as feet washing- or anointino^ 
the sick, for the M. E. Church. South ? Has it the power to 
change any existing rite no\y enjoined by the Discipline ? Has 
it the power in and of itself — to abolish tlie rites enjoined by 
the last Discipline? Elder Ditzler will not notice these, but 
there is not a Methodist in this house, member or minister 
but knows that this local Society at Carrollton. nor all the 
Methodist Societies in this State can ordain a new rite or 
chang-e or abolish an old one. Therefore accordins: to the 
Discipline and General Conference, this Society here is not a 
Church in any proper sense of the word. 

Xor is a Quarterly Conference a Church, according to the 
Discipline for not a layman — an unofiicial member of this So- 



The Church of Christ, 931 

ciety nor of any similar one in the South can belong to the 

Quarterly Conference. I read from page 50. 

Ques. 1. " Who shall compose Quarterly Conferences?" 

^ Ans. " All the traveling and local preachers, * * •• exhorters, stew- 
ards, trustees, and class-leaders of the respective circuits, stations, mis- 
sions, together with the superintendents of Sunday schools who are 
members of the Church, and secretaries of Church Conferences, and none 
others." 

And all Methodists know that a Quarterly Conference can- 
not ordain, change or abolish a rite or a ceremony, nor even 
administer a rite. It is no more nor less than a Magistrate's 
Court, over which the Presiding Elder presides, "to hear com- 
plaints and to receive and try appeals." Dis. p. 53. 

I^or is an Annual Conference a Church in any sense of the 
term, though in these bodies, all traveling preachers and all 
supernumeraries and superannuated ministers have their mem- 
bership, and in no other body in the domains of Methodism! 
1^0 definition that Elder Ditzler has hitherto given of a Church 
of Christ applies to this body in whi^h he holds his membership, 
no infant or child or wom.an, or lay member, nor even a class- 
leader, steward or local preacher ever was or can be a member 
until the General Rules are changed. It is a body of ministers 
only. In this body are no "Sacraments" or Eitual, neither 
baptism nor the Lord's Supper, nor is this body authorized to 
administer baptism. It is in no sense recognized as a Church, 
nor does Elder Ditzler claim it to be and therefore Elder 
Ditzler is not today a member of any Church on Earth. If 
he should prove his proposition he would at the same time 
prove that he nor any Methodist minister present is a member 
of a Christian Church for he is not a member of any local 
Society — and if he admits that the Annual Conference com- 
posed entirely of ministers is not a Church, he will again con- 
cede that he is not a member of any Christian Church on 
earth. I suggest to him that here is more legitimate work 
for him to do, than to discant upon the features or history of 
Baptist Churches, w^hich matter has nothing to do with this 
question any more than the last. It is his " Church" not mine, 
that is now under examination. 

The General Conference is not a church in any sense, nor 



„^^ The Great Carrollton Debate. 

does it claim or call itself a church, nor does the Discipline 
recognize or speak of it as a church — but as the General Con- 
ference of the M. E. Church. It has no sacraments or ritual 
— no infants, no children, no women, can be members of it. 
i^ow, if the local society here is not a Scriptural church, nor 
the Quarterly, Annual, nor General Conference, where pray 
is the Scriptural Church f Will all these put together, if they 
could be — but they cannot be united so that a member of one 
is thereby a member of all — constitute a church? Will four 
negatives make an affirmative? I have shown by Wesley and 
the Disciioline, and by the decision of the General Confer- 
ence, that the society in this place, or any other place, or 
all of them in the South put together is not a Gospel, or 
Scriptural Church ; and I have shown that if Eld. Ditzler can 
iirove his proposition, he will prove that he is not a member 
of an 3^ Christian Church on earth, for he is not a member of 
any local society like this! 

My next argument is : 
LI. The M. E. Society " heke, and elsewhere, in all its 

FORMS and features, IS ONLY A HuMAN SOCIETY, SINCE IT 

WAS Invented and set on Eoot by mere Men, and Unre- 

GENERATE MeN AT THAT. 

One of the first essential Scriptural characteristics of the 
visible Church and Kingdom of Christ is, that it is of God — 
from heaven, of Divine origin, and hence called Kingdom of 
God, and of Heaven, Church of God, of Christ, etc. 

It was not originated by sinful man, or men. Prophet nor 
Apostle, but by Jesus Christ, the God of Heaven and King 
of his own Kingdom — and not mediately — by aiKl through 
others, but "without hands," by his own present, personal 
agency. 

It was foretold that Christ himself should set it up. 

"And in the days of these kings shall the God of heaven set up a king- 
dom, which shall never be destroyed : and the kingdom shall not be left to 
other people, hut it shall break in pieces and consume all these kingdoms, 
and it shall stand forever. Forasmuch as thou sawest that the stone was- 
cut out of the mountain without hands, and that it brake in pieces the 
iron, the brass, the clay, the silver, and the gold ; the great God hath 
made known to the king what shall come to pass hereafter : and the dream 
is certain, and the interpretation thereof sure." Dan. ii. 44, 45. 



The Church of Christ. 



933 



The stone is admitted by all sound commentators, to sym- 
bolize the visible Kingdom or Church of Christ which he was 
to set up at his advent. It was not before Daniel's day, the 
four universal earthly kingdoms, Babylonian, Persian, Gre- 
cian and Roman, had to rise and become universal before the 
Stone was cut out — z.e., before the Kingdom of Christ should 
be set up. The Jewish nation, nor any conceivable organiza- 
tion then existing for that had previously existed, wa& the 
Church and Kingdom of Christ — mark the prophecy. The 
Kingdom was to be set up by the God of Heaven himself. 
The " Stone " which symbolized it was " cut out without hands, ^' 
agencies, angelic or human. Now, I open the New Testament 
at an age after these four kingdoms haye arisen and become 
universal in the days of the King of the fourth and last Em- 
pire; and I read the declaration of Jesus Christ. 

''And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I 
will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. " 
Matt. xvi. 18. 

The Rock w^as himself whom Peter had confessed, and 

Ohrist declares that he himself would upbuild his own church. 

He did not commission his Apostles to do it — it would have 

been the sin of rebellion in them, or in angels to have done 

so. This is the immovable kingdom that we, the saints of 

Ohrist have, received. 

"Wherefore we receiving a kingdom which cannot, be moved." Heb. 
xii. 28. 

Paul expressly declares that Christ nor Peter ever claimed 

that they built or set up the church, but himself did so. 

"For this mo^n was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inas- 
much as he who hath builded the house hath more honor than the 
house For every house is builded by some man; but he that built all 
things is God. And Moses verily luas faithful in all his house as a ser- 
vant, for a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after ; 
But Christ as a son over his own house ; whose house are we, if we hold 
fast the conflden<3e and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." 
Heb. iii. 3-6. 

Christ himself, then, while on earth, builded his own house 

— the literal and true house of God, of which the house in 

which Moses served was the type — nor can there be any doubt 

what house is here referred to^ since the Apostle tells us 



934 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

''whose house are we." Paul explained it to Timothy. 

"These things write I unto thee, hoping to come unto thee shortly: 
But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave 
thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the 
l)illar and ground of the truth." 1. Tom. iii. 14,. 15. 

It was a body that had officers and ordinances and definite 
laws, by which to govern it — and therefore visible. 

I affirm, then, in view of these facts^ that any organization 
confessedly invented, originated and set up by ineiiy cannot be 
(considered or recognized as a church of Christy it not being 
from heaven, but of men, of the earth earthy. 

I submit a question to my opponent^ and to all who hear 
me this day — 

Suppose I should originate a new religious society — originat- 
ing for it a new and unheard of polity — which I do not even 
claim to have derived from the Bible and a peculiar membership 
of my own chosing, and unlike that the world had ever seen 
or heard of before, and sacraments — but you may be assiired 
I would make the ordinances, sacraments peculiarly my own : 
— for instance, I would have all unite with my church — and I 
would invite a^^ to receive baptism by drinking a glass of water, 
while I would repeat the design — '^whosoever drinketh of 
the water that I shall give him, it shall be in him a well of 
water springing up into everlasting life," and I would teach that 
ni}' baptism not only was " the means of grace" — not only 
conferring, but s^ecwnn^ salvation to all — and honestly before 
God and you all, I do believe that this is as Scriptural as 
sprinkling or pouring. I say, suppose I should originate such 
church, and should succeed in gathering multitudes to follow 
me as I would — would you say that it was a Church of Christ 
— or Graves' Church, a man's affair, set up in opposition ta 
Christ's Church and Kingdom ? I well know what you would 
call it — and you would name it rightly — nor would the mere 
accidents of numbers^ ivealth and age, make it less Graves^ 
Church and more the Church of Christ — a Gospel, Evangeli- 
cal, Scriptural Church. Let honest Christian men decide 
these questions, and then decide if I have not as good 
authority to originate a Christian Church as had Calvin or 
Luther, as John Wesley or Alexander Campbell. If my re- 



The Church of Christ. 935 

ligious society would be rightly called and treated as a man's 
church — a mere human society, in opposition to the church 
which Christ set up, then I say, and you are compelled to say, 
that John Wesley's Society, called Methodism, is a human 
society set up, and to-day operating against the church which 
Christ established. I affirm that the M. E. Society in this 
city, and in every other place on earth, is a human society, 
and no more a Church of Christ than the Masonic or Odd 
Fellows' Lodge, or the Temperance Society of this place is a 
Christian Church. 

1. It was originated by two men, I read from the Discipline, 

and thus gave you the declaration not only of John Wesley 

himself, but of every General Conference from the year 1784. 

"2. The District Conference shall be composed of all the preachers in 
the District, traveling and local, including superannuated preachers 
(whether resident without or within the limits of the Annual Conferences 
to which they belong), and of lajanen, the number of whom, and their 
mode of appointment, each Annual Conference may determine for itself." 
— Meth. Dis. p. 50, Art. 2. 

Then two young men, John and Chas. Wesley, originated 
Methodism and raised up the people called Methodists, who 
are f('»llo\vers of these men, as certainly as Campbellites are 
the followers of A. Campbell, or the Mormons of Jo. Smith and 
B. Youne;. But these men were unrea^enerate sinners when 
they originated the first Methodist society — and can a clean 
thing come out of an unclean? Did God reject the work of 
His own son, and raise up and commission two unregenerate 
men to build a church for him? 

In 1735, ten years after his first ordination and six years 

after he and Charles had started Methodism they both sailed 

for Georgia to convert the Indians. 

"On his return, and afterwards falling in with Peter Bohler, a pious 
Moravian, he became convinced that he was unregenerate. "This, then, 
I have learned in the ends of the earth — that I am fallen short of the glory 
of God ; that my whole heart is altogether corrupt and abominable. I am 
a child of wrath, and an heir of hell. I left my native country in order to 
teach the Georgian Indians the nature of Christianity ; but what have I 
learned myself in the mean time ? Why, (M'hat I the least of all suspected, ) 
that I, who went to America to convert others, was never myself converted to 
Ood.^^ This was written January 29, 1738. He became a penitent enquirer, 



9c)^ The Gre-at Carrolltox Debate. 

and in ^l\\y folIo%\-:ng, We<tnesday 24tn, j obtained satisfactory eA'idenee to 
himself of having passed horn death Linto hfe. — See Wesley's Journal vol. 
iii. p. 42. 

His brother Charles professed a change of heart May 3. 1738 

From his histoiy Ave learn that John Wesley had been preaching thir- 
ceen years before he was a converted man himself ! Thns while in an mire- 
generate state, a wicked sinner before God. and nine years before he was a 
conveited man. he and his brother Charles, also a sinner like himself 
devised and set on foot the Methodist Society' It would be wrong for 
Christians to foUow or obey in religion the brightest or purest angel — Christ 
never authorized an angel to devise a church for his children, m.uch less 
men. and ' how intinitely much less unconverted men. 

I will now submit extracts from the standard authors of the 
M. E. Chtirch to show that the 3*Iethodist ■"church'"'* did orig- 
inate with 111 en. 

Isaac Taylor, in his work. ""VTesley and Methodism."' page 
199. says : 

"W^leyanism is a sehe-me — it is the product of -uninspired intelligence, and 

therefore has its defects." 

2. Page '214i. '-But Wesleyanism is the work of man . . it is open to the 
freest scrutiny — 

3. '"Dr. Coke aiTivedin Xew York on the 8d of ZSTov. 17S4. and on the 2oth 
of Dec. fohoving. the Grener^d. Conf-rfnce assembled at Baltimore, at which. 
time the Methodist £. Church was organized..'' — Dr. Bangs' Orig. Church p. 26. 

4. "Methodism has, from, the beginning, been in a most striking man- 
ner, the child, of p-rovidence. Xearly ail its pecuhar characteristics were 
adopted, without any prenious design on Vie, part of the niatruraents by whose 
agency a wuH brought into organized existence, as circumstances seemed to 
require, and without expectation of their becoming elements in a perma- 
nent ecclesiastical constitution." — Dr. Hinkle. in Pl''r.-:>rm of Meth:-dism. 

This only claims that the Methodist E. Cliurcli came into 
existence hy sheer accident. An accidental church. The Chris- 
tian Church was organized hy Jcsus Cnrist — IMethodism by 
accident — nnere liap pen-so. 

Methodism, hy J. H. Inskip. a work widely indorsed hy the 

Methodist press. 

■5. "As a creature of Providence, Methodism, in her j)eciihar external 
organization, lias adapted herself to the exigencies of the times, * * 
and hence though covstanthj changing^ yet, like the modifications through 
which the human system passes, in the vaiious stages of its development, 
she has always maintained her identip.' entire.''— 'Introdiu-ction-. 

" It is but a httle more than one hundred years since the first Metho- 
dist society was formed by Mr. Wesley in England, The M. E. Church 
has 7101 been in existence seventy years J' — ^Page 53. 



The Church of Christ. 937 

Finally, it may be said, Methodism in England and America 
was a special system. It originated in as dark and unpropitious 
a period almost as ever known in the history of Protestant 
Christianity. 

6. Says Inskip, " a more wise or better arranged system of religious 
or moral enterprise, could not have been conceived. Of course, like aU 

other HUMAN INSTITUTIONS IT HAS ITS DEFECTS AND IMPERFECTIONS. — 

Page 65. 

7. Hear Isaac Taylor : " No man was more devoutly observant of the 
authority of Holy Scripture than Wesley ; but his understanding was as 
practical in its tendencies as his piety was sincere. He perj-'ectly jdt^ 
whether or not he defined that conviction in words, that an apostolic 
Church — altliough right to a pin — uohichdld not subserve its main purpose — the 
spreai of the Gospel and t le conversion of the ungodly must be regarded as an 
ABSURDITY, and a hindrance to truth. What is the chalF to the wheat? 
" What are wholesome and scriptural usages and orders, which leave Chris- 
tianity to die away within an inclosare V 

8. "I say here the fact is clearly intimated, that Wesley regarded the 
apostolic Church organization as iriefflcient and useless, and consequently 
rejected it as " an absur dty^ and a hindrance to the truth leaving Christianity 
to die away. What an epitaph for frail man to write upon the work of 
Christ and his Apostles ! ! He then mapped out of his own brain a reli- 
gious scheme — Ciiurch system— to supersede it, to accomplish what that 
could not — thus assiniiing more than Christly prerogatives, since he reject- 
ed the authority and work of Christ, and set up a human organization to 
be the rival and antagonist of Christ's Church ! Methodism, then, seems ta 
have been originated a rival of, and designed to supplant the apostolic pat- 
tern of Church organization, and its workings from its birth until the 
present, are all directly and palpaljly to this end ! How then c^fti a fol- 
lower of Christ encourage it, or enlist under its rival banners? Are not 
such the followers of men? Even Methodists so regard themselves — 
the followers of John Wesley ! Methodist Societies are caUed by Method- 
ist writers, very properly, "Mr. Wesley's Societies," and "Methodist So- 
cieties," not Churches of Christ. 

9. "He would not have turned any of the nobility away if they had 
sought admission into his classes.''''— -Inskip. 

10. "The fact, that few of the higher classes joined Mr. Wesley's societies, 
etc.'''' — Inskip. 

11. "The policy of John Wesley, and A is /e^^oM;4a6or6rs and sons in the 
gospel. ' ' — Inskip. 

12. " You are the elder brother of the American Methodists ; I am, under 
God, the. father of the whole family .^'' — Johyi Wesley, in a letter to Asbury. 

Here Wesley claims a divine right to create and rule Meth- 
odists, under God; i. e. juredivino. 

13. "Our design is to show, that is our duty as ministers of Christ, and 
THE SUCCESSORS of the apostles and of John Wesley," etc. — Inskip. 



938 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Methodist ministers are the successors of the apostles and 
John Wesley ! ! 

Hence Methodists are very properly- denominated, by their 
writers, 'Hhe folloivers of Mr. Wesley. ^^ 

14. "The whole body of Methodists knowing this, and acknowledging 
Mr. Wesley as their spiritual /azSAe/- and/ozmie?-, would receive from him 
what they could not witli any justice or propriety from any one else." — Dr. 
Bangs^ Orig. Ch. p. 99. 

15. "As Mr. Wesley, under God, was t\i.Q founder of the Methodist Soci- 
eties, and the expounder of Methodist theology, so was he the originator of 
much that is pecuhar to the ecclesiastical polity of all the different branches 
of the great Methodist body in all parts of the world." — Gorre s His. Meth. 
p. 217, the latest Methodist historian. 

16. "The archetype of Methodism is the character of its founder. He 
[Wesley] was a man of but one aim. and to this every thought and effort 
converged." "How blessed is Methodism, to have orgininated (humanly 
speaking) from such an author. She never need to fear for her safety 
or prosperity, while she wears the mantle of such a prophet.^'' — Memphis 
Methodist Advocate. 

I would saj. How 7n.ore blessed to have originated with Jesus 
Christ, and how much less to fear did she wear the mantle of 
such a prophet! ! 

In view of the mass of authority I have produced, showing 
that Methodism is of man — a worldly scheme — a human expe- 
dient — a man-devised societ}' — am I not warranted in saying 
without laying myself open to the eharg^^ of illiberality or 
bigotr^% that for the organization of Methodism as a scriptural 
church I have no more Christian fellowship or regard than for 
that of Masonry or Odd Fellowship? 

Replication. 
Having indicated the questions involved in the discussion 
of this question, which will govern me throughout, I will but 
briefly notice the manner in w^hich Elder Ditzler has treated 
it. 1. He ridicules the very discussion of this question, thinks 
it absurd to question the scriptural character of the M. E. 
Societies, and reproaches Baptists for so doing! It is some 
months too late to do this. Why did not he — why did not 
the commiittee he controlled object to it? They raised no 
objection. It was accepted for serious discussion. Why then 
does not Elder Ditzler discuss it as a Christian man and 
scholar should ? define a visible church hj giving its true 



The Church of Christ. 939 

diferentia, characteristics, and then show that the M. E. So- 
ciety in this place possesses them. But what has he done the 
past hour? I say it with profound mortification and regret, 
because I did want to discuss the question as it should be, 
for the sake of the reputation of this debate, and for the good 
I hoped the discussion would do. He has rehashed his con- 
fused and confounded definition of the universal and invisible 
church in Heaven and on this earth ! It is known to all that this 
invisible church is purely an ideal body. It is nothing real, 
but imaginary. It never was conceived of, noi- can be as "set 
up," or "builded," or " established," or "re-established." I 
say it is a pure ideal conception, and never was conceived of as 
having organization, laws, ordinances or ritual, and of course 
it is a something, even if the conception is warranted by a 
solitary passage in the Word of God, with which we have 
nothing whatever to do, in discussing the plain question, 
whether the local M. E. Society here in Carrollton, composed 
of sprinkled infants and unregenerate persons seeking the aid 
of its rites to Hee the wrath to come, and doubtless some 
truly regenerate persons. This certainly is no universal, nor 
invisible church, composed entirely of the saved in Heaven, 
nor a branch of it, and why iias he spent the most of his hour 
talking about the invisible or ideal body of Christ? I assure 
you he has not quoted a passage of Scripture that applies or 
refers to the "invisible church," if there be one — -not" one. 
Had I time I could, by an analysis of them, prove it to your 
satisfaction. 

Let him mention two or three of the passages that he is 
most certain to refer to, not the real but ideal church of Christ, 
which not a few call the "invisible chnrch," and I will show 
hjni and you that they do not. The very passages he has 
most often quoted from the beginning of this debate, Heb. xi. 
and xii. and xiii., the ripest critics of this age, and his own 
Dr. Adam Clarke declare, must and do per necessity refer to 
the visible, real, present church of Christ on this earth! He 
convicts himself before you of the grossest ignorance of the 
Word of God, or of the most unwarranted attempt to becloud 
the minds of his hearers by palpable perversions of it. This 



940 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

is lay reply to more than one half of his speech — it was a mass 
of crudities and contradictions, wholly irrelevant to this ques- 
tion, and designed to draw me from it. 

2. The rest of his essay that referred to a church on earth, 
was at best incoherent, and his theory intangible by any ap- 
pliances possessed by me. He will of course develop them 
fully, even if he puts it off to the last half hour allotted to 
him on this question. A few independent assertions I will 
now notice. 

1. "Now, baptism does not initiate into, or make the parties m^embers 
of, such local congregation." 

In the discussion of the last proposition, I showed you by 

presenting the authorities, that all churches in all ages, and 

all commentators in ages past or present, consent that the 

New Testament does teach that baptism does initiate into the 

local visible church, and I showed you by reading his own 

discipline that it so teaches, and every time Eld. Ditzler has 

sprinkled an infant or adult he has taught it and prayed it, 

and now he stands up here and openly denies it ! I shall not 

repeat them, but will read you two or three statements which 

Eld. Ditzier has read and prayed a hundred times. 

" Grant to this child that which by nature he cannot have : that he m.ay 
be baptized with water and the Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's 
Holy Church and be made a lively meynher of the same." 

" Almighty and everlasting God, we beseech thee for thine infinite mer- 
cies, that thou wilt look upon this child : wash him and sanctify him with 
the Holy Ghost ; that he^ being delivered from thy WTath, may be received 
into the ark of Christ s Church." 

" Then the minister, addressing the parents, or others presenting the 
child, shall say. In causing this child to be brought by baptism into the 
Church of Christ." 

So of the office for the baptism of adults. 

He presents apparent difficulties against baptism initiating 
in the church, but not an insuperable one — an impossibility. 
It is an axiom in logic that difficulties do not suffice to refute 
a proposition, unless they are insuperable. Now the difficul- 
ties presented by Eld. Ditzier inhere in the inauguration of 
all visible institutions, Masonry, Odd Fellowship, Granges — 
and thinking men will readily solve them by principles familiar 
to them. 



TiiE Church OF Christ. 941 

T do most clicerriilly endorse it as a rule that the baptized 
belong to the same organization with the officer baptizing until 
that relation is clianged b}' subsequent action. Paul was baptized 
into fellowship with the church at Damascus and the Eunuch 
and the Samaritans into that of Jerusalem until he was united 
to some other cljurch and thej were constituted into a church 
at Samaria. His views of church polity are in their nebulous 
state, when they assume "a local habitation and a form," I 
will examine them. The rest of his speech was directed to 
the relative growth in numbers of the two bodies, as though 
rapidity in multiplying societies here and there, gathering 
numbers was an argument to prove that the M. E. society 
here in Carrollton possess the scriptural characteristics of a 
church of Christ ! There the Papists, Mormons, and Spirit- 
ualists have the argument! Eld. Ditzler should have left such 
claptrap to his presiding Elders — his people certainlj^ expected 
something better of him. He tells us to look at the fruits of 
Methodism and to know it, and he boasts that owing to its 
inherent purity and preeminent holiness, it purified the 
nations and even renovated all other churches and prepared 
them for prosperit}'. Well, Methodism was never purer nor 
the membership more holy than in Wesley's day, and no man 
knew better than Wesley how holy they were, and as a befit- 
ting reply to Eld. Ditzler's boast and bombast, I will read 
from Mr. Wesley's Journal, vol. v. p. 213: 

"The world say, "The Methodists are no better than other people." This 
is not true. But it is nearer the truth than we are willing to believe. 

N. B. For (1.) Personal religion either toward God or man is amaz- 
ingly superficial among us. 

T can but touch on a few generals. How little faith is there among us ! 
How little communion with God. How little living in heaven, walking 
in eternity, deadness to every creature ! How much love of the world ; 
desire of pleasure, of ease, of getting money ! How little brotherly love ! 
What continual judging one another ! What gossiping, evil speaking, tale 
bearing ! What want of moral honesty ! To instance only in one or two 
IDarticulars : who does as he would be done by, in buying and selling, par- 
ticularly in selling horses ! Write him a knave that does not. And the 
Methodist knave is the worst of all knaves. 

(2.) Family religion is shamefully wanting, and almost in every 
branch." 

"Our religion is not deep, universal, uniform; but superficial, partial^ 
uneven. " 



942 The Gpi:at Carrollton Debate. 

"But as great as this labor of private instruction is, it is absolutely neces- 
sary. For, after all our preaching, many of our people are almost as 
ignorant as if they had never heard the gospel. I speak as plain as I can, 
yet I frequently rneet with those who have been my hearers many years, 
who]^now -not ^vheiher Christ he God or man. And how few are there that 
know the nature of repentance^ faith^ and holiness ! Most of them have a sort 
of confidence that God will save them, while the world has their hearts." 
—Wesley's Journal, Vol. v. pp. 213-4. 

If Eld. Ditzler sees fit to continue in this line of argument(?) 
I may be tempted to read more from Mr. Wesley, and some- 
thing in defense of my people, but I will still make an honest 
efibrt to influence him to discuss this question by urging seri- 
ous and fatal objections to the claims of his Society being a 
Scriptural Church. — [^Time out 



The Church of Christ. 943 



DR. DITZLER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators : — As to our proposition, the word- 
ing of it was by the Baptists themselves, and if it be awkward 
as it ought not to be, they are to blame. The main points 
we can discuss anyway — are we a part of Christ's Church? 
for that is the way we are discassing it. 

He complains of me leading so much. Well, we hope he'll 
not get so entangled in the brush as to entirely loose our track. 

He don't consider us an " evangelical body — we are in error 
— but a child of his father's family," etc. Very well. If he 
has no errors, if he is infallible, we hope he will give us light. 

He then comes to his first objection to us — his first reason 
for not considering us a church — a branch of the church of 
Christ. We '' are a human society — organized by two men — 
unregenerated men. It did not originate with Jesus Christ; 
was organized 1729 by two young men." N^ow let us look 
into these statements. 

1. He misses the date by ten years ; it was 1739. Wesley 
was converted, on his way from Georgia, a colony then of 
England, and not till from that date did the work begin. 

2. He confounds the prayer-meetings the two or three Ox- 
ford youths had, as school boys, seeking for regeneration with 
the after organizations that were built up after the complete 
regeneration of these and other men. 

Such blunders are a disgrace to the man that makes them. 
Cannot he get some point in history correct? Does he have 
to blunder on every point, get right on none? We see two 
of his objections are from his own want of information and 
they are swept away at a stroke. But two more remain. 

The societies were organized by two men, hence not by 
Jesus Christ ! Will he tell us, show us where Jesus Christ ever 
organized congregations, societies, or any thing of the kind? 
Is it anywhere recorded? He knows it is not. N^ow was 



944 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

there ever a Baptist church on eartli that was not organized 
hy men? Can you find one? Why now all this ado and 
abuse, when he knows that all congregations and associations of 
men have to be organizer) hy mml They may act under the 
laws of God as Wesley did, as all Baptists claim they did, but 
they were men still. Did Baptists w\ait for beings not men, to 
come and organize their churches? 

But does Dr. Graves not know that when men are regene- 
rated, made children of God, adopted into his family, tlien^ pur- 
suant to the teachings of the Bible thej can organize themselves 
together, and that no church on earth was ever organized in any 
other way? Let him find one exception. Does Christ 
descend to earth to organize congregations or visible churches? 

But Wesley sinned horribly in that he believed Providence 
had thrast them out to reform society! He makes a fearful 
parade over that! Well, is not that rich? Was not the first 
Baptist church in America named Providence, because they 
])elieved that Providence had even directed their stormy way 
to that place of security ? The Brother is so blinded by preju- 
dice he fors^ets and rushes rio^ht on to tlie breakers and into 
the quicksand. 

Again he returns to human society. As we proved our en- 
tire proposition in our first speech, we can dwell on his objec- 
tions now, and press him to the wall on every point. 

You believe Baptist "societies" are churches of Jesus 
Christ, I presume. Well, then, w^e will take them up. 

1. All Baptist standards hold as we do, that of God's chil- 
dren, any number of such may organize themselves together 
under God's Word, and are a church; Prof, iiipley, one of 
the most distinguished Baptists and writers of their church in 
America, says : 

Those communities of Christians who have abandoned the primitive . 
practice in respect to baptism, ar^ churches not in a state of order, so far as 
the positive ordinances of the Gospel are concerned." Review of Griffin's 
Baptist Library^ vol. iii. 214. 

He admits they are chu7'ches. 

2. BuNYAN. — " The whole Church. This word comprehendeth all the 
parts of it, even from Adam to the very world's end, whether in heaven or 
earth, etc. Now, that baptism makes a man a member of this church I 
do not yet believe, nor can you show me why I should." — 879. 



The Church of Christ. 945 

This is exactly our position all through this debate. Thus 
we have these Baptists all with us — against Dr. Graves. 

3. EoGER Williams. — " Backus' History, Bap. Lib. i. 102, 
announced and acted on these principles as we will soon see. 

Benedict — p. 450. 

''Any company of Christians may commence a church in gospel order, 
by their own mutual agreement, without any reference to any other body ; 
and this church has all" power to appoint any one of their number, 
whether uainister or layman, to commence anew the administration of 
gospel institutions." 

Mell of Georgia held the same. Helwys, ^Ae founder of the 
Calvinistic wing of Dr. Graves' church, held the same. Hence 
a meYnber of his church published a dialogue quoted lengthily 
by Baptist historians — Benedict, Backus, Cramp, which ad- 
mits Baptism had been lost to the world, and he argues how it 
Was to be restored — clearly setting forth how Smyth, as well as 
showing on what ground Roger Williams and Clark acted in. 
later years — 1639, 1644. See Cramp p. 296. He asks how 
baptism shall be restored after Antichrist is exalted andrules. 
The answer is thus sriven : 

o 

" We and others afiirm, that any disciple of Christ, in what part of 
the world soever, coming to the Lord's way, he by the word and Spirit of 
God preaching that way unto others and converting — he may and ought 
also to baptize them." 

He illustrates it bv Ezra i. 3, 5, that as everv Israelite was 
to go and buikl the temple — 

" So novf, every spiritual Israelite %oith lohom the Lord -is, and whose spirit 
the Lord stirreth up^ are [is] commanded to go and build, etc., to couple 
them together a spiritual house unto God, upon the confession of their 
faith by baptism, as the Scriptures of the New Testament everywhere 
teach,"* 

The Brownists, whom Smyth joined, repudiated the ordina- 
tions of the English church, " but they did not rebaptize," 
Cramp, p. 286. How Smyth was baptized : 

*' There has been much dispute ■■• -•• It is a thing of small consequence. 
Baptists do not believe in apostolic succession, as it is commonly taught. 
But the probability is, that one of the brethren baptized Mr. Smyth, and 
that he then baptized the others. The number of these brethren soon in- 
creased greatly. A church was formed of which Mr. Smyth was chosen 
pastor At his death, 1611, Mr. Thos. Helwys was appointed in his 
place"— (Cramp 287) — [and his member lorote the above dialogue sustain- 
ing that right. 1 

^■Tracts, pp. 158-166. 

59 



946 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

TliTis we see that all Baptists, all their fonnders. acted on 
our principles, held them to be the ouly scriptural views. 
TThv has Dr. Graves abandoned all primitive Baptist princi- 
ples, and gone into so many '• nevr fangled'"" notions? Those 
principles will stand forever, because everywhere taught in 
the Bible as we showed in our opening, as well as former 
speeches. 

2. Let us now show you that all Baptist churches were or- 
ganized by human beings, on these principles. 

"For the origin of this church. Tre must go back to 1644. when, accord- 
mg to tradition, it was formed. The constituents were Dr. John Clark 
and wife. Mark Tuker. Xathaniel West and wife, TTilhani Vanghan. 
Thomas Clark. .Josei^h Clark, John Peckham. John Thorndon. T\'iILiani 
and Samuel "^'eeden. — Benedict, p. 465. 
Benedict. 467 — second clause : 

''This church originateil in 1655. when twenty-one persons broke off 
from the first chiu'ch. and formed themselves into a separate body. Their 
names were Wilham Vaughan, Thomas Baker. James Clark. Jeremiah 
Clark, Daniel TV'ightman. John Odhn, Jeremiah Weeden, Joseph Card, 
John Greenman, Henry Clark. Peleg Peckham, James Barker, Stephen 
Hookey. Timothy Peckham. Joseph Weeden, John Rhodes. James 
Brown. JohnHammet. T^'illiani Rhodes, Daniel Sabear. and William 
Greenman. 

There were doubtless females in this secession but no names are given. 

These seceders objected against the old body, 

1 . Her icse of vsalmody. 

'2. Undue restraints upon the liberty of jrrophesyingj as they termed it. 

3. Particular redemption. 

-L Ser holding the layirig-on-of-ha/ids as a matter of indifference. 

Backus, Cramp, and the historians all confirm this fact. 
Xow what becomes of Dr. Graves" views and assaults? 

But he says if God raised up Lesley it was a reproach to 
the men he had already raised up, TVell. that is rich indeed. 
TThat does he mean? Has he been rubbing up against 
Ewine a2:ain? T^Then God raised up the seventy it was a 
reproach to the twelve Apostles then, and all is reproach to 
•John the Baptist. TThen he raised up Paul it was a reproach 
to Peter and the twelve, by Dr. Graves'" logic. ^Wlien he 
raised up Calvin. Beza. Melancthon. it was a reproach to 
Luther, etc. Did not Elijah. Isaiah. Amos succeed others ? 
Do vou not see how weak, absurd — how inexDressiblv fiimsv 
are all the positions of Dr. Graves? ^hy is it so? Xot for 



The Church of Christ. 947 

want of mental vigor, but purely because he's wrong, and we 
right, and such absolutely ridiculous objections are the best 
that can be brought against God's holy truth. 

But he tells us Wesley never organized — never intended 
to organize a church. 

1. Were that so, it does not in the least alFect the merits of 
our position. Asbury, Coke, or any of the converted men — 
God's children — could do it as legitimate!}^ as Wesley, and it 
would be Scriptural in the light of all Baptist precedent and 
early teaching and sustained still by all leading Baptists of 
Virginia, !N"ew York, and New England. Better than this, it 
is sustained by the whole Bible, as we showed. Nor has Dr. 
Graves dared to attack a single argument we made. 

2. Wesley did draw up the rules, articleia of faith, ritual, and 
ordained Coke bishop, and empower him to do so in America„ 
I have the first Discipline ever published, and the word 
^'bishop" is there and an Episcopal form — mild, restricted, 
established, more completely in accordance with Scripture than 
any in existence. Our ideas of a Bishop, as to order, are 
essentially those of Presbyterians, as Watson and Wesley 
show ; Wesley said he himself was a Scriptural Episkopos — 
bishop. 

When Wesley wrote that hasty lettar the Doctor read from, 
he had been misinformed as to tacts. A disappointed man 
returned and so misstated, and colored matters as to greatly 
irritate the usually placid mind of Wesley, and under that 
feeling and impulse he spoke. But afterwards he fully guided 
and ratified all that was done here. 

Baptist writers and preachers assailed Bunyan and Smyth 
with the fiercest invective, and denounced them in wicked 
terms. Bunyan was denounced by his brother Baptists as "a 
lifer,^ antichrist, devil." He tells us of the foul abuse they 
poured upon him. Nay, it is one of the evils of that church, 
that its writers rely .as much, with Ssome noble exceptions, on 
slander, abuse, detraction, as on perverting records, history, 
and distorting the meaning of their opponents. When will 
they learn better ? 

A fourth objection, if I number them rightly, is, we do not 



948 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

possess a Scriptural membership. ''Every stone, he said, in 
that building must be a living stone." 

1. Peter speaks of themselves — we as lively stones are built 
up. He is telling how the membership of the church is 
expected to work — do duty. The same style of address is 
often applied to the church in the Mosaic period, when infants 
were in it. 

2. Can Baptists say that every stone in their church — every 
member, is a regenerated child of God? You know you 
cannot. 

3. We formerly stated that in Peter's day people were in 
the church, in Paul's day, Jude's day, John's day — all this we 
quoted — who were anything else than "lively stones" — bad 
men. So that if his charge were good, it falls to the ground. 

4. But does Dr. Graves want to compare the piety of his 
people with ours ? Does he want to compare their orthodoxy 
with ours? Does not Benedict, does not Cramp put it in evi- 
dence that nearh' the whole Baptist church ran into Socinian- 
ism, Arianism, its leaders not strictly pious at all, and warring 
on each other, fuming and anathematizing each other, — dead, 
when Wesley rose up ? They do, most emphatically. 

5. Have the Baptists the tests, the rules by which each con- 
gregation can be kept pure and correct, like those of our 
church? They have not. The Discipline both of our church 
and M. E. Church, being exactly the same here, demands that 
all who, as adults, are baptized or received into our church, 
profess "faith in God" — renounce the world, the flesh and the 
devil, and go through three times as rigid tests as do the Bap- 
tists. So this objection falls to the ground most disastrously. 

We have now answered every objection the gentleman has 
filed against the position of our existence as a church. Sadly, 
deplorably has he failed to adduce anything that will stand a 
test, bear investigation. But look at the attitude in which it 
places Dr. Graves as a leader and theologian. Warring on 
other churches, denouncing them as " mere human societies." 
Is this the only foundation he has on which to base such 
levers and pries with which to overthrow our claims? He 
owes it to himself, his people and the world to adduce some- 



The Church of Christ. 949 

thing that will make some show, at least. How can he con- 
front the world, face his people, with such a record? It is 
an attempt to upset the Andes with cob-web ropes, or trans- 
port the Rocky Mountains across the plains on corn-cot 
rollers. 

But what has he attempted in reply to our Scripture argu- 
ments? There they stand, and they will stand forever. 
Having given Scripture elabomtely for all our positions, we 
then showed the noble record of having saved Protestantism. 
Dr. Graves' church was as dead, as lifeless and hopeless as 
a last year's corn-stalk. All their snccess, all their prosperity, 
they received from us. What preachers they had w^ere either 
out-and-out Arians, Socinians, lifeless, useless, indiffer- 
ent, or the opposite extremes, telling the people that hell 
was full of infants, and preaching up such a godless theology 
as would freeze to polar frigidity all better impulses of the 
human heart. 

1. We have triumphantly established our principles by the 
Scripture, in our first speech. Dr. Graves has not even at- 
tacked any point made. 

2. We have shown that under God, we saved Protestantism. 
He has not dared to meet or try to break the force of our 
historic exhibit. It is full, complete. 

3. We have met every objection he produces to refute our 
proposition, hurling back upon his own head the consequences, 
the deductions he draws from the positions he assumes. 

4. We showed that the Baptist church did hold the same 
principles as to the right of organizing a church, restoring 
the ordinances and purity of the church, that Wesley held, 
with this grand exception — he did not have to go and baptize 
a man, and that one in turn, baptize him, in order to restore 
baptism, as Smyth and Helwys and their Baptists did in 
England, and as Roger Williams, Holliman, John Clark, etc., 
had to do in America, while all the Anabaptists of Germany 
had their baptism directly from Rome. 

He told us a great long rig ma role about being invited 
to some religious convention up in Virginia, where the most 
visionary men in the world — a set of religious hotspurs and 



950 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

madcaps were going to launch a new-fangled church with 
a great hurrah and so on. AYe thought at first it was going 
to be something, but lo ! it turned out to be a mere body of 
hair-brain fanatics and men of Ewhig proclivities, and, he 
tells us, they wrote Dr. J. R. Graves a letter of invitation to 
attend — Yes, indeed thev did 

4 

AYelL who is surprised at that? ^ot I, to be sure. I 
would have expected it. They undoubtedly had read his 
w^orks, and if they had, the}' had ever}' reason to expect him 
to attend. Had thev heard what we have from the o-ood 
Doctor, undoubtedly they would have expected his presence, 
and made him president of the meeting. — \_Time out 



The Church of Christ. 951 



DR. GRAVES' SECOND REPLY. 

Mr. President: — I will continue my objections to the 
claims of the local M. E. Society in this place being a Scrip- 
tural Church and hold my replication to the conclusion of my 
speech. 

My third objection is 
III. The Methodist Society in Carrollton or any other 

PLACE DOES NOT POSSESS A SCRIPTURAL MEMBERSHIP. 

The legitimate members of the Church of Christ, visible^ 
are declared by the Word of God to be " Saints," the " Faith- 
ful in Christ Jesus," believers in Christ, " the saved," " spirit- 
ual" men and women as opposed to '^ Carnal" — those " born 
from above," quickened and made alive by the Holy Spirit, 
^'adopted," the "children of God," every one, "first-born ones," 
whose " names are written in the Book of Life." The Metho- 
dist Discipline defines it : 

"The visible Church of Christ is a congregatioii of faithful men, in 
which the pure Word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly admin- 
istered, according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of neces- 
sity are requisite to the same. — Meth. Dis. Art. xiii, p. 17. 

I like Dr. Ditzler's definition better. " E'o one can be a 

member of the true Church of God," and of course of no one 

of its " branches," unless he is a child of God, justified by 

faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, it requires one to be in Christ 

Jesus." See page 21, Wilkes-Ditzler Debate. 

He will not attempt to go back on this definition, I ask 
him again, as I have so often, to define a visible church, that 
has ordinances. He has for the past hour assumed that the 
church we are discussing is the invisible church. He is out- 
raging discussion. Will he accept the thirteenth article as the 
definition of a Christian church ? 

jSTow, the M. E. Society here does not claim to be such a 
body as Elder Ditzler or as the Discipline defines it to be. It 
is not a body of "faithful men," nor of professed Christians even. 



952 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Perhaps not one-third, or one-tenth of its members profess to 
enjoy satisfactory evidences of regeneration, or of heart justifi- 
cation. The larger part of the adnlt membership are still but 
nominally desiring to "flee the wrath to come," etc., while one 
third or one-half of its members are incapable of hearing or be- 
lieving the Gospel! If it was properly defined it would be : 

"A society composed partly of professing Christians, partly 
of unregenerate persons professing a desire to become chris- 
tians, and largely of morally unconscious infants and children." 

A class-leader in the Mississippi Bottom told our mission- 
ary that the M. E, Church at that place consisted of one hun- 
dred and fifty members. He knew but three that professed 
regenerationof heart. And a M. E. preacher in one of the popu- 
lous towns of Mississippi, confessed to me, while his church 
was by far the largest, numbering between some two and 
three hundred, very few were regenerate or professed to be — 
nominally seeking to flee the wrath to come. It is certain 
that the word churchy in the IN'ew Testament, denominates no 
such heterogeneous and semi-secular medley of a society. 

To say that the M. E. Society, at Carrollton, is a society of 
professing Christians, would be erroneous, for it would be 
ascribing to it a property it does not possess, nor even professes 
to have. It is not a society of Christians ; for Christians are 
believers in Christ, who are recognized as such by a declara- 
tion of their faith ; but a large part of this Society consists 
of members who are incapable of faith. Or, were they ad- 
mitted to be believers, are incapable of the profession which 
is necessary to the cognizance of Christian discipleship. 

Suppose Peto or Peabody of England, had left a bequest 
of one hundred thousand dollars to build a church house in 
this place for a Christian Church nearest answering the defi- 
nition of Art. XIII. — A congregation of faithful men, under- 
standing it in its lowest sense — professed believers in Christ, 
in which the ordinances were administered as they were in 
the apostolic churches, what congregation here would be the 
least likely to get it f 

But this element of membership is not accidental, but con- 
stitutionaL Your Discipline requires in fact none but those 



The Church of Christ. 953 

seeking salvation. It nowhere makes any provision for the 
reception and baptism of a regenerate person. I will read 
the conditions only required by the statute book. 

2. ''Such a society is no other than " a company of men havmg the form 
and seeking the power of godliness^ united in order to pray together^ to receve 
the word of exhortation^ and to watch over one another in love, that they may help 
each other to work out their salvation. ' — Dis. page 32. 

4. There is only one condition previously requked of those who desire 
admission into these societies, a " desire to flee from the wrath to come, 
and to be saved from their sins." 

" The minister shall cause the candidates to be placed conveniently be- 
fore the congregation, and after baptizing any who may not have been pre- 
viously baptized, he shall say : etc." 

"Brethren, the Church is of God, and will be preserved to the end of 
time, for the promotion of his worship and the due administration of his 
word and ordinances — the maintenance of Christian fellowship and dis- 
cipline — the edification of believers, and the conversion of the world. All, 
of every age and station, stand in need of the 'ineans of grace which it alone 
supplies ; and it invites all alike to become fellow-citizens loith the saints and. 
of the household of God. But as none who have arrived at years of 
discretion can remain within its x^ale, or be admitted to its communion, 
without assuming its obligations, it is my duty to demand of these 
persons present whether they are resolved to assume the same." 

" Then shall the minister address the candidates, as follows : Dearly be- 
loved, you profess to have a desire to flee from the wrath to come and to 
be saved from your sins; you seek the fellowship of the people of God, to 
assist you in working out your salvation." — Bis. pp. 215-217. 

]^ow this is all that can be found in the Discipline on the 
subject. There is not one word ^honi faith in Christ as hav- 
ing been exercised, received and enjoined or regeneration of 
heart required in all this, but simpW a desire to flee the wrath 
and a promise to repent, etc. A person may live and die i^s 
many have, a creditable member of a Methodist Episcopal So- 
ciety, and never make a profession of regeneration. Prior to 
1866 a six months trial was required of all seekers, and if they 
then still evinced a desire to seek, they were admitted into full 
membership, but The General Conference of that year took 
away this probationary porch and admitted all into the Socie- 
ties and to baptism at once ! A movement backwards. 

We see that a professedly regenerate — christian membership 
was an elernent essential to the existence of a Scriptural church, 
a congregation, a body of faithful men," say your articles^ 



954 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

professed Christians^ not sinners. To call a body or society a 
church, not constitutionally composed of such, is to mislead 
and deceive tliose who may be in it, tomisteach the \vorld and 
do the Q'rossest violence to the Word of God. The Sacred 
Scriptures know no such churches or branches. 

Let me illustrate thisbv the fio-are of another.* 

" When we learn from the Scriptures that a synagogue was, a rehgioiis 
assembly of the Jews, and from authorized usage that the Sanhedrim was 
their Judicial Court, we know that Jews, exclusively, constituted these 
assemblies. The terms, according to their authorized usage, are exclusive 
of all others. Any other assembly than one of Jews is not a synagogue, 
or Sanhedrim ; for these terms mean not simply an -Jissemhly^ or a religious 
or judicial assembly, but a rehgious or judicial assembly' of Jews. A Jewish 
membership is an element essential to their existence. Without the exist- 
ence of Jews there can be no synagogue, or Sanhedrim. It is immaterial, 
though other assemblies may, in all other respects, be perfectly like a syn- 
agogue, or Sanhedrim ; they are not like it in an element essential to its 
existence, and therefore to their identity. The same is true of 'the word 
Parliament, as signifying the British Legislature. We know that this word 
means the Legislative Assembly of England. We know, therefore, that 
none but Englishmen are eligible to its membership.; that wherever it 
exists, it is composed of Englishmen : and that any other assembly than' 
one of Englishmen is not the Parliament. The conclusion, respecting the 
sense of this word, is specially true, as it is learned from the proper source, 
in English History. The same is true of the word church. When we know 
that this word is used, in the Scriptures to designate an assembly of Chris- 
tians, we know that no other assembly can be a church ; just as well as we 
know that no substance can exist in the absence of its essential elements ; 
or that there is no tree where there is not that which thewordtreesignifi.es." 
I adopt the sentiments of one of our most eminent minis- 
ters and writers in Xorth Carolina, that this audience and the 
world may see that I represent here the sentiments of every 
sound Baptist on this continent touching this vital issue between 
Baptists and Methodists, which so long as it exists must for- 
ever separate and alienate and provoke incessant hostility be- 
tween us- 

'■'■ The great and cardinal defect of Methodist Societies is their doctrine 
of an uxcoxvERTED ME3IBER3ITIP. This is the vent in the foundation ; 
the rot in the core. This vital element of Methodism is the deadly antag- 
onist of true Christianity. It is essentially and detrimentally secular, 
while Christ says, '' My Kingdom is not of this world." The Church of 
Jesus Christ consists of those who are " called to be saints, and sanctified 
in Christ Jesus." They "are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an 

^^W. H. Jordan. 



The Church of Christ. 955 

holy nation, a peculiar people, that " thej- " should shew forth the praises 
of Him who hath called" them "out of darkness into His marvelous 
light." They are "THE light of the world" How little does such 
a glorious description of the Church of Christ agree with the character of 
societies whose very life-blood is an unconverted membership ? — the half 
of whose members consists of unconscious infants ; and the natural and 
legitimate effect of whose principles is to organize a society in which true 
piety is no more a necessary condition of membership, than it was of 
admission to the privileges of the Mosaic economy? In fact, to abolish 
from the whole earth the sight or knowledge which, "coming" to the 
"Lord" "as mi to a living stone," "are" "as also, lively stones built up 
a sjDiritual house," an holy priesthood, to ofier up spiritual sacrafices 
acceptable to God by Jesus Christ : " and to supplant its ijlace with an in- 
stitution in w^hich not a member shall occupy his position in consequence 
of his voluntary, or indeed of any profession of his faith in Christ, or shall 
ever have dedicated himself to the Lord in the ordinance of baptism. 
This it is the very nature of Methodism to do. It is the dreaded progenj- 
conceived in an unholy embrace with secular ambition, with which she 
is in travail. 

A Christian Church and a Methodist Society differ, therefore, not only 
in the instituted but the moral condition of membership, as much as a 
Christian Church differs in its conditions of membership from the Mosaic 
dispensation, 8uch a difference in the condition of membership naturally 
imparts a corresponding difference to its nature. Accordingly, we see 
that the materials composing a Methodist Society and a Christian Church 
are materially and radicahy diffierent. A large if not the larger part of 
Methodist Societies consists of infants. Can such a society be the same 
with one whose members must all be professed believers in Christ? Sup- 
pose the law of the Christian kingdom required that its subjects should 
consist exclusively of Jews, w^ould a society whose members, in whole or 
part, were Gentiles be a Christian Church? Can again, a society be a 
Christian Church, in which persons who are of age are admitted to mem- 
bership without even professing t<j be converted ? Is not the practice of 
admitting members into a church, as a means of conversion, one of the 
grossest corruptions of the Gospel, and eminently calculated to abolish 
the distinction between the church and the world, and to convert religion 
into an engine of secular ambition ? There can be but one answer to this 
question among Baptists. If such a Society be a Church, the association 
of Whitfield, the Wesleys, and others, at Oxford, for their religious or 
other improvement, was a church Indeed, upon this principle nothing 
is more easy than the concoction of a Christian Church. All that is ne- 
cessary, at any time or any place, is for a company of dissidents, pro- 
fessedly unregenerate, to separate from a communion which they 
acknowledge to be a true Church of Christ, and, in violation of its canons, 
organize independent " societies ; " and, instead of standing branded as a 
scHiSMATicAii BODY, it is a fuU-blown, Heaven-authenticated Church of 
Christ ! Upon such a principle Christian Churches may be easily erected 
and as indefinitely multiplied as were our late unfortunate Confederate 



950 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

notes. AVe can only say, that if the Church of the "livmg God" be a 
creature thus blown into existence by mortal breath, it is a very different 
institution from what we have ever believed it to be. Says Dr. W. H. 
Jordan : If a Society be a Christian Church merely because it contains 
some believers, then a cake of mud — to say nothing worse — containing 
some flour, is the same as a wheaten loaf ; and it is the same whether we 
eat the loaf, or, for the sake of the flour it contains, eat the mud. The 
truth is, the flour which assumes such a heterogeneous and vitalizing con- 
nection, becomes assimilated to its associated element, loses its value, and 
is worth but little if any more than the mud itself. 

We must acknowledge we cannot see the consistency, and quite as Httle 
the delicacy, with which Methodist Societies complain of Baptists for not 
admitting their unconverted members to their communion, when they 
know that we would not baptize or receive them into our own churches. 
The reception of such persons into a church they regard as dishonorable 
to the Gospel, subversive of its very foundation in a spiritual member- 
ship, and of a most unprox)itious and threatening aspect towards the un- 
fortunate subjects themselves of such a flagrant malpractice. It is as 
inconsistent and unnatural to receive unconverted members into a 
Christian Church as it ^vould be to bring to a feast a dead man : and, by 
then' various arts, to galvanize his cold and clammy face and shrunken 
limbs, over the festal board, into some frightful and ghostly imitation of 
the acts of life. Unconverted men are " dead in trespasses and sms : " 
and until it shaU please God, of His mercy, to raise them from the dead, 
they are unfit for the habitations of the living. They should lie in their 
graves, as their only fitting place, until the Eternal Spirit shall awake 
them to life. They will then as naturallj^ seek union with the living as 
they were previously unfit for it." 

Replication. 

The first thing I notice in his last speech is the en- 
deavor to change the loording of the question, which he cannot 
be allowed to do. It matters not who proposed it, Elder 
Ditzler accepted it through his committee. I have heard 
Methodist Elders and others talk about branches of the church, 
and assert that their Society or church itself was one of the 
6ran(?A65 of Christ's Church, and now I want to know what 
Elder Ditzler means by the phrase "a branch of the church." 
He wants now to say ixirt o': the church, and I don't know what 
that means. When we follow branches we ultimately come to 
the trunk, the parent tree. ]^ow when I follow this Methodist 
branch back, I find it a branch or twig of another branch, and 
following that I come to the church of Rome, the mother 
tree. But the Catholic Apostacy was never a branch of the 



The Church of Christ. 957 

Church of Christ. If Methodist societies are branches of any- 
thing, they are branches of the Papacy. The Episcopal hie- 
rarchy, in the bosom of which Methodism was originated, 
boasts that she is the Anglican branch — and eldest daughter of 
the Latin, or Roman Catholic church. There is another theory 
prevalent among Rituahsts — i. e., that the church is indeed 
one, but divided into several parts or families, as the various 
Episcopal sects indeed are — as the Greek Episcopal, the Latin 
Episcopal, the English and Protestant Episcopal, and the. 
Methodist Episcopal churches — related as children and grand- 
children of the same parent, the Catholic. I will and must 
suppose that Elder Ditzler means that Methodism is a '' part 
of" this church. He will not have the hardihood to claim 
that the local society in this city is a part or a branch of the 
invisible church, that has no parts or divisions. Will he explain? 

I have never said that I considered this Society here, nor 
any Methodist Society, nor all of them, as Evangelical, or 
part of my Father's family, nor the shadow of such an admission 
have I made. But that I no more admitted it to be a church 
than I did a Masonic Lodge in this city. It is always the 
best to state an opponent's position correctly, and especially 
when he has the opportunity of correcting. 

2. But I have disgraced myself in stating that the first rise 
of Methodism was in 1729, and that in that year the first So- 
ciety was formed by Messrs. John and Charles Wesley, and 
that I confound the prayer-meetings with the organization, 
etc., and intimates that I blunder on every point, and get right 
on none, and charges it to my lack of information, etc., Now 
this will do for a professional controversialist, but let us see 
who blunders, and who perverts. 

I will take it for granted that John Wesley, the father of 

Methodism, knew quite as w^ell as Elder Ditzler, when he 

originated and started his first Society. Hear what he says: 

"In 1729, two young men in England, (Charles and John Wesley, 
members of the church of England, and the latter a minister, ) reading 
the Bible, saw they could not be saved without holiness, followed after it, 
and incited others to do so." 

"In November, 1729, at which time I came to reside in Oxford, my 
brother and I, and two young gentlemen more, agreed to spend three or 



95S The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

four evenings in a^\*eek together. On Sunday evening we read something 
in divinity, on other nights the Greek and Latin classics." 

'' On Monday, May 1st, our little society" began in London, But it may 
be observed, the first rise of Methodism, so called, "^'as in Xovember, 1729, 
when four of us met together at Oxford." 

In 1735, this society in Oxford had increased to fourteen or 
fifteen members. 

TTho correctly represents the facts in the case? Methodism 
then oris^inated witli four unres^enerated vonns^ men. savs John 
Wesley, who, becoming the most active, assumed, and was 
soon acknowleds^ed to be the father of the svstem. The sec- 
ond rise of Methodism was in Savanah, Ga.. April, 1736. 
Let Mr. Wesley speak, and it Avill save my cpurteons oppo- 
nent from charging me with blunders. He writes from Geor- 
gia of this Society thus : 

"After the evenhig service, as many of mj paHshioners (not Christians 
necessarily) as deshe it meet at my house (as they do on Wednesday 
evening) and spend about an hom^ in prayer, singing and mutual exhor- 
tation." 

The third and last rise, he says, '' was at London, on this day, May 1st, 
1737, when forts' or fifty of us agreed to meet together exerx Wednesday 
evening, in order to Q.jree conversation^ (about what, the Greek and Latin 
classics ?J begun and ended with singing and prayer." 

" In January, 1739, our Society (Mr. Wesley did not presume to call it a 
Church) consisted of about sixty persons. It continued gradually increas- 
ing all the year. In April I went down to Bristol, and soon after a few 
persons agTeed to meet weekly, with the same intention as those in Lon- 
don;" 

All can see there was no ori^inatins: anvthina' new in London 
in 1739, any more than there was on the day of Pentecost. 
John Weslev savs Methodism commenced in 1729. J. Ditzler 
says it did not. but in 1739; will Methodists decide? Twill 
quote a few paragraphs from Mr. Inskip's work on Meth- 
odism, since Elder Ditzler has joined issue with me as to who 
originated Methodism. Mr. Inskip says : 

" In the begmning, Mr, Weslej' did not conceive the idea of forming a 
Society at all. Afterwards, however, he (not Jesus Christ, not an apostle, 
not an angel, but he John Wesley, priest of the church of England > con- 
summated such an organization as he found (taught or exampled in the 
Xew Testament ? Xo, he did not consult that) but as he found to be 
suitable and necessary. But this organization was not a distinct sect, 
holding a particular formal creed, or prescribing any exclusive method and 
ceremonies of worship. It was a Society in the Chxtrch, (i. e, of 
En.sfland.V 



The Church of Christ, 



959 



Mr. Iiiskip seems to be penetrated with the coDviction that 
his Church is but a sham Church. He claims for Methodisai 
but little more than Masonrv claims to be, and nothing- more 
than the American Bible Society is — ^'^system'^ — not a Churcli, 
but only a system or scheme of a religious and moral enter- 
prise ! "Methodism is not a mere sectarian form of Christi- 
anity, h\d a SYSTEM of religious and moral enterprise^' Page 
40. Again, he says, "A more wise or better arranged system 
of religious and m.oral enterprise, could not have been con- 
ceived. Of course, like all other humai^ institutions, it 
HAS its defects AND IMPERFECTIONS !" Page 65. Here Mr. 
Inskip frankly admits that it is a human institution^ and an 
imperfect andi defective scheme. May T allow him to tell us here 
who devised the System? See page 54 : 

''Finally, it may be said, Methodism in England and America, was a 

special sysfem.'''' 

" To meet the emergency which then existed, God raised up a company 
of great men — men who were great in intellectual endowment, moral ex- 
cellence, and inventive genius. There was John Wesley, who has justly 
l)een designated the greatest of ecclesiastical legislators — Whitfield, the 
most extraordinary of pulpit orators — Charles Wesley, anion, g the best of 
sacred poets — Coke, the leader of modern missionaries— Asbury, the most 
laborious of bishops — and Clark and Benson, one the most learned, the 
other the best practical commentator ever known. These men devised 

THIS POWERFUL INSTRUMENTALITY, WELL STYLED 'CHRISTIANITY IN 
EARNEST.' " 

"Every agency they could command, however novel and irregular, 
they used with energy and enthusiasm." 

The Wesleys, Whitfield, Coke, Asbury, Clark and Benson, 

then DEVISED Methodism. They did not copy it from the 

Bible, or mould it according ta the teachings of Christ, or 

conform it to the model church, built by Christ, or Mr. Inskip 

would not say it was a "human instit'ution," or "devised" by 

the above men ! Will Methodist Christians think in what fold 

they are? whom they are following? and what institution they 

are supporting? — [^ Time Out. 

I reserve the rest I have to say to my next speech. 



960 The Great Carrollton Derate. 



DR. DITZLER S THIRD SPEECH. 

Gt;2sTLEMEX Moderators: — He tells us he asked me to de- 
fine the church. It is unfortunate the Doctor is so hard of 
hearing. He loses a great deal by it. 

As the Doctor has made no real point, we will call his at- 
tention to a few points that demand attention at his hands. 
As I meet and overthrow every point he seeks to make, we 
hope he will try to meet some of our points raised against his 
church. They are congregational. Each church is indiffer- 
ent — a form of ecclesiasticism never known in the world tillas 
late as A. D. 1602. We call his attention to succession, so re- 
lied on by Dr. Graves and his people in the South and AVest, 
and to the form of that government. 

Apostolic or Baptist Succession. 

1st. Its Claims or Pretensions are 

1. Repudiated and ignored by their best historians and 
writers — Benedict, Backus, Ripley, Bunyan, Cramp, Jeter, etc. 

2. ]N'ot claimed by their most eminent divines in the pres- 
ent day. 

3. Refuted by all history. Giesler, the most accurate his- 
torian utterly grinds to powder all such claims. 

2d. It implies that Baptists cannot rest their case on Bible 
support — or its own merits, but needs scaffolding and fictitious 
support. 

3d. A doctrine attended with such results as this is, should 
be clear, sustained by the most positive, simple, and unques- 
tionable facts. Yet 1. It is supported not by a single fact in 
the Bible or history. 2. Contrary to all the records of (1) 
general history, (2) repudiated and destroyed by all standard, 
candid Baptist writers. 

Being Congregational — Whence came it? Let us ex- 
amine into the government here. 

1. From Moses to Christ the Church was not congregational, 



The Church of Christ. 961 

Num. xxvii. 15-23. There was nothing of the kind, and the 
laws for the government of the Church were a unit. The 
laws for a congregation were for all, and no such thing as 
Congregationalism was dreamed of. They had no Brown or 
Robinson to invent it. 

2. Christ and John found it thus. Where now did John 
organize and officer congregations or separate churches ? Show 
that. But you must do this to make good your claims — start 
right before you get into the fog of later history. Howell, 
p. 75, and their authors — all Baptists — contend John's was 
Christian baptism, and they were never rebaptized, p. 75.* 

3. With Jewish precedents, Christ uses the word Church 
thrice — Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17 twice there, in the familiar 
Jewish sense, verses 18-20 also. 

4. During Christ's personal ministry he never organized 
those who believed on him, or were pardoned by him, into 
separate congregations, any more than did John. He taught 
in the temple, in houses, everywhere — healed, pardoned, 
saved. It devolves on Dr. Graves to show where he did do 
these very things to make good his side of the question. Yet 
he knows he dare not attempt it. 

5. Where in Apostolic records do we find the change ? Ex- 
amine the Apostolic history. 

(1.) Acts i, 22-26 as a whole they select — the Hol}^ Spirit 
chooses the one. N'othing congregational here. (2). Acts 
11, 4-11 all these Jews followers of Christ — some of whom 
doubtless are named Acts i. 15, the number assembled on 
that occasion " together," — then converts 11-41 " were added" 
— no new organization, "continued in the temple, 46, daily. 

(3.) Acts vi. 1-4 — "The multitude of the disciples" were 
called in with " the twelve" Apostles, to lookout seven proper 
persons " whom we laay appoint." This is not Congregation- 
alism. 

(4.) Acts viii. 6, 8, 12, 14—" I^ow when the apostles which 
were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word 
of God, they sent unto them Peter and John." 

*Bunyan says, " John gathered no particular Church." A Reason of 
my Practice, Complete Wojrks, 829. See Iron Wheel also, p. 549. 
60 



y62 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The Apostles and brethren as a body assumed charge. 

(5.) xi. 1-2; V. 18 and v. 22. 

' And the apostles and brethren that were in Judea heard that the Gen- 
tile had also received the word of God.'? " And when Peter was come 
up to Jerusalem, they that were of the circumcision contended with him." 
"sayiug, Thou wentest in to men uncu'cumcised, and didst eat with 
ihemy "But Peter rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and ex- 
poimded ii^ by order unto them saying." "I was in the city of Joppa 
praying : and in a trance I saw a vision. A certain vessel descended, as it 
had been a great sheet, let down from heaven by four eornei-s ; and it 
came even unto me. ' ' 

Here we see not only no Congregationalism, but just the op- 
posite, and facts utterly eontrary'to, and irreconcilable with it. 

(6.) xiv. 26 — Paul had gone by the recommendation of the 
Church at Antioch, 3et xv. 1-3, shows there was no Congre- 
gationalism yet. The following will confirm this : 

" Wherefore my sentence is, that we trouble not them, which from 
among the Gentiles are turned to God." "Then it please<l the apostles 
and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own 
company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas : namely, Judas sumamed 
Barnabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren." " And they wrote 
letters by them after this manner ; The apostles and elders and brethren 
send gTeeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch 
and Syria and Cilicia." "Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain 
which went out from us have troubled yon with words, subverting your 
souls, saying, Ye must be cu'cumcised, and keep the law ; to whom we 
gave no such commandment." " It seemed good unto us, bemg assem- 
bled with one accord, to send chosen men unto you with our l3eloved Bar- 
nabas and Paul" " Men that have hazarded their lives for the name of 
om Lord Jesus Christ." " We have sent therefore Judas and Silas, who 
shall also tell you the same thmgs by mouth." " For it seemed good to 
the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater bm'den than these 
necessary things." "And some days after, Paul said unto Barnabas, 
Let us go again and visit our brethren in every city where we have 
preached the word of the Lord, and see how they do. 

The Apostles, etc., as a whole settle these matters — not the 
congregations for themselves. 

(7.) Acts viii. 38-39 — Of what individual church did Philip 
make the Eunuch member who was on his way to a distant 
place ? 

(8.) xxi. 25 — the same case as xv. 

(9.) Did the conversion of parties Acts x. 41-47 make Cor- 
nelius, etc., members at Jerusalem ? Those in xiv, were they 
made members at Antioch ? 



The Church of Christ. 963 

^N'ow here we have a chance ^o test your form of Church 
government, yet we see it will not stand investigation for one 
moment. 

Let us now examine the points the Doctor sought to make 
against us. 

He calls attention to the Church in Carrollton, saying that 
they cannot tell (1) how many infants, nor (2) how many un- 
converted members, received as seekers, are not a society of 
believers, for a large part, he says, cannot believe. 

He guesses at it all — has no information — shuts his eyes, 
dashes ahead, and as usual, is unhorsed, badly crippled, and 
tries some other point of attack. 

We must inform him (1) That Bro. McDonald keeps a rec- 
ord of all baptisms here, as is made the duty by our laws in 
all churches. But (1) Whether we do right or wrong, that 
not being under discussion now, infants are not reported in 
our statistics as members. Our statistics are wholly of adults 
in both wings of Methodism. Hence you are misled and 
wrong here again. (3) As to unconverted members. Baptists 
will too Hadlv take these Methodists into their own church, 
requiring no additional conversion, but only a dip into water. 
]N'ay, Methodist proselytes are deemed so good by them, they 
take our expelled members and ministers — even in many 
cases where vv^e expel them for immoral conduct These are 
unpleasant things to tell, but when you here bring in a com- 
parison, if you softer by it, it is your own fault. But w^e are 
far from pursuing such a course — disdain to do so — where 
you expel for immorality. 

What he has to say on infant baptism, w^e had that up three 
days, and will have it up again in our next, so we will let that 
pass till then, and it will fare as all else he has attempted 
will fare. 

Now hear him again. He says we have no service to bap- 
tize regenerate people! Nay, '^ not a word about faith in the 
heart in the service for baptism !" 

Now turn to Discipline, page 149 — "Dost thou believe in 
God, and in Jesus Christ ? Wilt thou be baptized in this 
faith ?" These are only a few of like close questions put to 



964 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

every adult when we baptize, in both the great bodies of 
Methodism. So again you see how reckless are the Doctor's 
assertions. It would mortify me beyond expression to be 
caught up, hemmed in, exposed as the gentleman is at every 
turn, in every corner, and no way open to escape. 

He stalks right on into the following most unguarded, and 
ungenerous statement — every w^ord of which convicts him of 
grossest ignorance of what we teach or of wilful misrepresent- 
ation. He tells us the vital point — the rock on which we 
stand — on which Methodists rest is unregenerate members in 
the church — half of whose membership are unconscious in- 
fants! 

We know that is the way they report us, and hence pretend 
to a larger adult membership than we have, when we number 
two, or two and a half to their one of adult members. We 
repeat, we do not report our infant baptisms in our statistics 
of membership in a single case. When will Baptists try to 
learn just a little truth, at least? 

He tells us that from the beginning they, as Baptists have 
protested against infant baptism. Beginning of what ? The 
beginning of the seventeenth century, we presume, for earlier 
than that there never was a Baptist church on the earth. Then 
they began. The first Anabaptist Churches in the common 
sense of that term did not at first reject infant baptism, even 
as Giesler and others quoted clearly show. 

But while you, as Baptists, made a big hurrah over baptism, 
why did you not do more in the way of arousing religious sen- 
timent, purity of life, soundness of doctrine? Religion was 
dying out everywhere under your teaching. We find you 
mired down in the mire and clay of doubt and uncertainty — 
dispirited — helpless, and going down before your victorious 
adversaries, and pulled you out, gave you all the start you got, 
keep up your membership in part today, and yet you have no 
heart to thank ns for it. He thinks it awful if by our rules 
men could organize churches as fast as Confederate notes. 
Would to God they were organized even faster than that. 
Then we would have the earth soon filled with hallelujahs, we 
would spare enough fire of love to Baptists to dry up the 



The Church of Christ. 965 

water frenzy; and the whole land be redeemed. That is what 
we want — need. 

Doctor Graves throws out a dry net and catches up all the 
unguarded expressions of men, condenses them together here, 
and then offers it to you as what our church is. Suppose we 
take the sayings that unguarded Baptists and open commu- 
nion Baptists and all have said of the Baptist Church, and 
what a picture we could draw. But every candid mind knows 
it would be wholly unfair — unjust. 

Xo doubt Dr. Graves often upbraids his own people just as 
Dr. Pierce does, and enters deep complaint, but is it fair to 
take that as a proof that his people are less spiritual and de- 
voted than other churches ? At the same hour, many minis- 
ters of other churches are doing the same thing — using like 
words of appeal to their people. 

Thus you see Dr. Graves all the way through, simply relies 
on the merest little catch-penny arguments and deals them 
out as if they were well founded, well digested and legitimate, 
yea, serious impediments before us — reasons for not regarding 
us as a real Christian church. He urges and seems to take 
the position that if any unconverted people be in the church, 
it is not a church. He quotes — " I will keep all thy righteous 
judgments." But this was David. He maintains that David 
was not in a church — was no church then. So his text is 
against him. But look at the matter now. He urges that if 
we have unregenerate members in the church, we are not a 
church. We showed— 

1. That there were unregenerate members in the church in 
the Old Testament times. 

2. Bad, unregenerate members in the church in the days of 
Peter, Paul and John, 

3. Unregenerate members in the Baptist church — plenty of 
them. 

4. I^ow if these w^ere all Scriptural Churches, though par- 
ties were in them that were not entitled to a place therein, 
why does it happen the rule cannot hold as true in our case 
as in the times of Moses^ of John, of Peter^ of Paul, of Dr. 

Graves ? 



g66 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

5. Were we to grant therefore, that the ii]faiits — ^yea, " un- 
conscious infants" were not legitimate members, how can par- 
ties that at least are not guilty of wrong — who camiot dis- 
grace the church by shameful acts of wickedness^ — parties of 
whom the Master said ''Of such is the kingdom of heaven" — 
"he that receiveth one such little child in my name, receiveth 
me" — suppose, we repeat^ all this be wrong — without warranty 
do tliey neutralize the validity of church existence when the 
tens of thousands of adult sinners and hypocrites in your 
church to-day are not admitted to forfeit your claim to being 
recognized as a legitimate, a Scriptural Church ? 

We have stated and restated the true philosophy of church 
existence till we are tired repeating it. All those in a saved 
relation to God — all his saved ones — who, were they to die^ 
w^ould be received to himself, constitute his real church. All 
who are by his blood redeemed to himself — saved. Any 
number of these may assemble together, w^orship, administer 
the ordinances, and thej are a legitimate church. They con- 
stitute a visible church — a local congregation representing a 
part of God's great spiritual family or church. All the fa<3ts 
in this position were laid before you on Proposition Second 
on Infant Baptism. We represented a brief summary of them 
in our first speech on this proposition. Never, no, not once 
has our Brother seen proper to attack a single position we 
took. They all stand boldly out, unscathed, unshaken. As 
long as they stand, our position is true, and all this " nibbling 
around the edge" as my friend Dr. Brents would say^ amounts 
to absolutely nothing. — \_7ime out 



The Church of Christ. 967 



DR. GRAVES' THIRD REPLY. 

Mr. President : — That I do not misrepreseut the only con- 
dition of membership since the change in 1866, I present a 
few extracts taken from a series of articles published in the 
Methodist Advocate^ at ISTashville, Teun., March 28th, 1874. by 
the oldest living Methodist on this Continent, Lovick Pierce, 
of Georgia, the father of Bishop Pierce. I do it for triple rea- 
sons. Eld. Piei'ce offered the bill in Conference that secured 
that change, i. e.. abolished the Probationary system and thus 
took the seekers into the church, and if any man, he ought to 
know if justifying faith, or being '^renewed in the spirit of 
his mind," is the present condition of membership. I 
do it because I want to perpetuate his protest and his proph- 
ecy, and place them before the eyes of thousands who other- 
wise will never see them. 

He wrote his articles before <>:oino: to the last Conference to 
which he went, with the hope of securing the change that 
would chrystalize his views into church laws and thus secure 
a Scriptural membership to the Methodist Church South, ever- 
more. But I regret to say he failed — he made the effort and 

FAILED. 

I quote from one of a series of articles in the Methodist 

Christian Advocate, l^ashville, and I do not strain or pervert 

his meanino; — 

"I am prompted just now to urge this inquiry, because I find in our 
papers frequent allusions to it in terms which incline me to believe we 
have some among us who are trying to make others believe that to r€K|uire 
any other religious experience as a condition precedent to reception into 
full connection us a member of the Church, than Mr. Wesley required to 
admit persons into his Societies — which was only admitting them into a 
class-prayer-meeting to aid them in seeking salvation — would be to inno- 
vate wantonly upon Wesleyan Methodism. Why, Mr. Editor, am I mis- 
taken, or did I not see in your' excellent Advocate very lately, mixed up 
along with many excellent things, as difficulties in the way of a genial 
Methodist fellowship between us and the Methodist Episcoi^al Church, 
this^ as the most unhearahle and irreconcilable of all, that they had departed 



968 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

so far from our Methodism here, as to make justification by faith — that 
is, the simple profession of it — a necessary condition in their law of rehg- 
ious eligibility to membership. On this, as a matter of fact, I am not 
posted, but do earnestly hope it is true. My hope of a general fraterniza- 
tion is -vevy feeble, but in as far as I am concerned I want the brethren to 
know that it will not be because they have put up the condition pre- 
viously recj[uired for actual membership in the church to the point where, 
I believe the examples in the New Testament put it in the inauguration! 
of the Christian Church.^'' 

This is a frank confession that he regards the present con- 
dition of membership in the Society here at Carrollton as 
nnscriptural, which sustains my point. But that there may 
be no doubt, I read two more : 

"And now. Brother Editor, as I am launching my Methodistic rectitude 
upon your judgment, I ask if this mentioned fact is not proof enough 
to sustain my chief postulate, which is, that the future accord of Meth- 
odism with its original mission, to spread holiness over these lands, will 
depend mainly upon whether we, as builders, see that this spiritual house 
is carried on to its final complement only luith lively stones. As I must 
hasten on my way, let me say — not as a prophet, technically considered, 
but nevertheless as a seer — that the church will never hereafter be saved 
from fashionable dissipations by the enforcement of a strong moral dis- 
cipline. This muscle in our arm is permanently j)aralyzed by the uncon- 
scious effect of political liberty upon safe moral restraint. Mind what I 
say, the church must be kept pure by building only ivith members renew- 
ed in the spirit of their minds. ^^ 

"It is now not only a question, but the question, whether, as true 
iSIethodists, we are to admit members into the Methodist Episcopal 
Church (I use this denominational title now in its original sense) on ^Ir. 
Wesley's one only condition previously required of such as desired to join 
his Societies, or, as a church, are w^e bound to iDut our condition for church 
membership higher, inasmuch as church membership is a much higher 
state of communion and fellowship, than the joining of a religious so- 
ciety, to aid the members of the Society to flee from the lurath to come 
by seeking present salvation from sin'? 

Our future members must come in not so much on Mr. Wesley's one 
only condition previously required, but upon King David's inspired plat- 
form : Here I am myself, even poor me — "Thy word is a lamp unto my 
feet, and a light unto my path. I have sworn and I will perform it, that 
I will keep all thy righteous judgments. Amen." 

If this could only be accomplished it would be the grandest 
and most salutary religious revolution that has taken place on 
this continent since its discovery, and if one or twenty more 
2:reat J. Weslevs will onlv aid in brino^ino^ it about I will 
write them. I hope this very Debate will aid in doing it, and 
I believe it will. 



The Church of Christ. 969 

IV. The M. E. Society in this place, as in eveky other, 

LACKS AN essential QUALIFICATION OF A SCRIPTURAL CHURCH. 

It IS WITHOUT Scriptural Baptism. 

Scriptural baptism is a constitutional prerequisite to the 
existence of a Church of Christ. There can be no church in 
any true sense of the term, without it. The voice of every 
standard writer in every denomination under the sun is in 
perfect accord in this. ''No Scriptural Baptism, no 
Church." 

When I say baptism, I mean just what the founder of his 
church, and the giver of the rite meant, i. e., the act he him- 
self received Sit the hands of his Harbino-er in the river Jordan, 
There lives not a man, unless biased by prejudices, or in- 
fluenced by party, but that in his conscience believes that 
Christ commanded His apostles to perform the identical act 
for baptism, which He and they had received from John the 
Baptist in the Jordan, and in his innermost conviction he be- 
lieves that act was a burial, an immersion, a planting in the 
likeness of death, and a rising again in the likeness of his 
resurrection. But if I have done one thing in my life, I have 
established during this discussion beyond a reasonable 
doubt, that immersion was that act, and therefore I say here, 
that an j^ other act, how sincerely soever performed or accepted 
is not the baptism Christ commanded, for by no other act can 
the profession be made which he requires, or the symbolism 
which he appointed. 

Scriptural baptism consists of four things. 1. Its form. 
2. Its design. 3. The Scriptural subject. 4. The proper 
authority — church. 

I introduce another illustration from the distinguished 

writer I have quoted : 

"If the condition of initiation into a Christian church were circumcision^ 
would a society be a Christian church which, for this rite substituted bap- 
tism ? If not, as little can a society be such, which, for baptism, substi- 
tutes sprinkling ; and in either case the reason is the same, because in 
neither the necessary condition of membership is observed. If, too, mem- 
bership would be invalidated by a want of its true condition, not less 
could it be by the substitution in the place of one that is unauthorized and 
spurious. Such a society fails of the character of a church. First, from 
wanting what it ought to have, that is baptism ; and secondly, from hav» 



970 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ing what it ought not to have, that is sprinkling ; and thirdly^ its anti- 
evangehcal complexion is deex>ened fi'oin the perversion of calhng an alien 
and incongruous substitute, by the name of Christian baptism. As we 
have seen that a Methodist society cannot be a Christian church, on 
account of the wa'at of one rite, so neither can it be on account of its, prcte- 
tice of another. It fails in one case fi-oni defect, in the other from excess ; 
either of which is equally destructive of the common identity of two 
objects. Two societies cannot be the same, when one is destitute of what 
is essential to the existence of the other and introduces a dissimilar and 
unauthorized substitute into its place. It would seem more con'ect to say 
that such societies are du'ectly antagonistic. If two things are the same, 
merely because they agree in some res^Dects, there are no two thing's 
which are not the same. If a society be a Christian church simplj^ because 
it is composed of behevers, (which, however, as we have seen, is not true 
of the Methodist societs' at CaiTollton,) no ritual service is necessary to its 
existence, which is equally contrary to the doctrine of all Christendom, 
to the dictates of reason, and the principles of revealed. religion. 

" We have asked, if a societj^ should 23ractice cncumcision as a condition 
of membership, would such a societj^ be a Chi'istian church? and we have 
sup)posed that the question admits only of a negative answer ; but this is, 
in effect, the verj' tMiig which Pedobaptists do. They practice sprink- 
ling, or, as they say, baptism, as a substitute for circumcision. The two 
rites differ only m form, not in priueiple. They iuvoh'e, according to 
Methodist Aievv's, the same privileges, and convey the same blessings. 
Hence Methodists are Involved in the absurdity- so fatal to all clear \'iews 
of the Gospel dispensation of maintaining the identit^^ of the Jewish state, 
and the Christian church. Infant baptism is essentially a Jewish element 
and a Methodist society may, in this resi^ect, more properly be called a 
Jewish rather than a Christian church. Even if Methodist societies obser^'ed 
IjaiDtism instead of sprinkling, their erroneous, secular, and anti-Christian 
views respecting its design and import, would of itself actuaUy destroy 
then claim to the character of Christian chm'ches. The Jewish and secu- 
lar elements, incorporated with then societies, darken the hght of Chris- 
tianitj', carnahze their character, and instead of perfuming and embalming 
them with the pure word of life, coiTupt and poison them with the doc- 
trine of a hereditary religion, and the sacramental virtue of ordinances, 
thus imparting to them the taint of a moral infection.-' 

The M. E. Society at this place, as everywhere else, is a 
body of professors and nun-professors, and those unable to 
make any profession. All unhaptized, and therefore in no 
sense a Scriptural church. There is another feature that 
works a forfeiture, etc. — its six baptisms, and not one for a 
person Scriptitrally qualihed, sprinkling, pouring and immer- 
sion, infant baptism, that of adult seekers. 

It has BO office for the baptism of a professedly regenerate 
person. This may strike some with astunishm-ent, but I do 



The Church of Christ. 971 

say here with the discipline iu my hand and in the presence of 
Eld. Ditzler, that in this book there is no office for the bap- 
tism of a professed Christian man or woman. Wesley him- 
self declared that the whole office for baptism ot infants 
proceeded upon the supposition that they are born again at 
the same time they are baptized, and it is as certainly of adults 
also, as I will show if Eld. Ditzler presumes to question it. 

The M. E. Society at Carrollton lao^s a Third Essential 
Feature of a Christian Church, viz., a Scriptural Organ- 
ization. Government implies laws, and laws authority 
to enact and enforce them, and execute their penalties. This 
authority must lodge somewhere. If in the hands of one man, 
then we have a monarchy. If this authority is without check, 
absolute and independent of limitation or control, then we 
have an absolute despotism. If this authority is lodged in 
the hands of a privileged few, then we have an Oligarchy. 
If in the hands of a privileged class, an Aristocracy. If in 
the hands of representatives chosen by the people, a Republic. 
If in the hands of the people, a Democracy. If in the 
hands of the priests of the body, then it is a Hierarchy. If it 
is constituted with law-making powers, it is a legislative body. 
If, with only power to execute the law, as already enacted, and 
by the people direct, then it is an Executive Democracy, 

Jesus Christ did institute a specific government on earth, 
when He set up His Church, and He called it His Kingdom, 
He could not set up a church without giving it a specific form 
anv more than an architect could build a house without ffivins^ it 
a particular form. This is self-evident. The first church Christ 
established was the mother and model of all future churches. 
We may safely say no church diftering from this in form of 
government and administration, was ever set up by His apos- 
tles. The act in any one of them would have been high 
treason against the King. Christ has authorized no one, 
man or angel, to change the government He originally 
gave His church in one jot or tittle. That we represent 
the views of the most eminent "writers and the most 
gifted Bishops of his own church, I submit a few extracts 



972 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

from their published writings. For the following extracts 
from an editorial article in the Methodist Quarterly when it was 
published in Richmond, Virginia, some twenty years ago, and 
edited by Dr. Doggett, now Bishop of the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church South, I am indebted to one of the editors of the 
Georgia Index. What will he say of his Chief Minister and 
master ? They amount to nothing in Eld. Ditzler's esteem — 
cobwebs across his path ! 

Extra ct-l. " Unless the professed followers of Christ organize upon the 
apostolic model, they are not a ehurch of Christy although there may be mem- 
bers of the body of Christ, or Christians among them." 

2. " Members and mmisters professing the religion of Christ, may con- 
gregate together for the purpose of worship, and may organize yet they 
will not he a church of Christy unless they organize upon the apostolic model. 

3. '' The members of regular Christian associations, may be true mem- 
bers of Christ's body ; may, by complying with the conditions of salva- 
tion, enter into the spiritual kingdom of God, and ultimately be saved, 
but they do nothdong to the chw-ch of God^ because the association, to which 
they attach themselves, was irregular, or was not a church of Christ, as 
wanting conformity with the true model, in the irregular particular, what- 
ever it may be." 

4. ' 'We do not contend that an organization in accordance with the apos- 
tolic model is essential to salvation, but only essen 'ial to make an organiza- 
tion a church.^'' 

5. "We do not suppose that any unprejudiced mind would call any body 
of men and women the true churchy so particularly described by the inspired 
writers, as the true church has been, unless it comes up fairly and fully ^ in 
ever^^ minute particular, to a description proceeding from that wisdom 
that could not err in the description, in any remote or conceivable degree," 

There is much more of similar import, in the article from 
which I extract, and the author, in the exuberance of his hber- 
ality, gives minute details to Baptists, as to the course ^/?e^ must 
needs pursue, if they would become members of an Episcopal 
church. He deems no church entitled to be recognized as a 
church of Christ, that has not an Episcopal form of govern- 
ment. So I say, of its membership, and of its Baptism, and of 
\iQ fundamental doctrines and origin. 

What is the form the Methodist Conference claims for 
American Methodism? They say it is "unique," sui generis, 
and so it is. I will let Rev. G. G. Cookman speak. I read from 
his great Centennial Speech, in John Street Church, ^ew 
York, endorsed by its official publication by the Methodist 



The Church of Christ. 973 

Episcopal Church, 1851. And let me say here, that the bare 

quoting this extract from the speech of Elder Cookman — 

though published by the G-eneral Conference — has brougiit 

down more abuse upon my head than any other one act of 

my life! Bat if I can, by suffering this abuse, serve u\y 

dear Master and advance his great work, then let his will be 

done. He alludes to Ezekiel's vision of '• Wheels within 

wheels," and says in his speeches, pages 145, 146 : 

" Now, sir, let us apply this to Methodism. The great iron ivheel in the 
system is itineranGy ; and truly it grinds some of us tremendously ! the brazen 
ivheel^ attached and kept in motion by the former, is the local ministry; the 
golden ivheel^ the doGtrine anddlsGipline of the Chui^Gh, in full and successful 
operation. Now, sir, it is evident that the entire moven^ent depends upon 
keeping the great iron ivheel of itinerancy constantly and rapidly rolling 
round. Biit to be moi-e specific, and to make an application of tJiis fig- 
ure to American Methodism, let us carefully note the admhable and 
astounding movements of this wonderful machine. You will perceive 
there are wheels within wheels. Firsts there is the great outer wheel of Epis- 
copacy, which accomplishes its entire revolution once in four years. To 
this there are attached tweyity-eight smaller wheels styled annual conferences^ 
moving around once a year ; to these are attached one hundred wheels, desig- 
nated presiding elders^ moving twelve hundred other wheels^ termed quarterly 
conferences^ every three months : to these are attached four thousand wheels^ 
styled traveling preachers^ moving round once a month ^ and communicating 
motion to thirty thbusand wheels, called class leaders^ moving round once a 
week^ and who in turn, being attached to between seven and eight hundred 
thousand wheels^ called memhers^ give a sufficient impulse to whirl them 
round every day. O, sir, what a machine is this !" 

.Truly, "what a machine is this !" We say to every one, 
"Let us carefnlly note the admirable and astounding move- 
ments of this wonderful machine !" How potent for good 
— if controlled by angels I How omnipotent for evil — if turned 
by men ! — 'Why, in essential character, it is the very system of 
the Jesuits of Rome ! It is, in principle, a crushing military 
despotism. It is astounding ! It is astounding that any set of 
men, after the American revolution, should have dared to 
fabricate, and set in motion, this great Iron Wheel of Episcopacy! 
Just look at it, and yon see it is a perfect system of passive 
obedience and non-resistance. Every smaller wheel being "at- 
tached" to the wheel next in power above it, and the whole 
moving in absolute control of the Great Outer Wheel of 
Episcopacy. The reflecting man must see at a glance, that 



974 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

all real liberty of thought and action is destroyed as truly, by this 
system, as by the ecclesiastical system of Rome — as by the drill of an 
army — as by any despotism upon the face of the earth. 

This then is the divine and sublime model of the Methodist 
Episcopal Church ? But the Society at Carrrollton is not this 
wheel ! It must be a branch of it — but what branch was the 
Great Wheel ? It must be one of the lesser wheels ?/any. 

Well sir, it is true that the symbolic wheel of Ezekiel is the 
only semblance that God's Word affords for the government 
of the M. E. Church, and it Is to my mind as authoritative 
as my opponent's position that the church of Christ is a con- 
tinuation of the old Jewish Commonwealth in order to estab- 
lish infant baptism. If there is any thing under the shining sun 
certain and made out, it is that the N'ew Testament affords no 
more authority for this wheel within-a-wheel-government of the 
M, E. Church than it does for infant baptism. It is this pain- 
ful fact that drives them into the shadows of a dark and super- 
ceded dispensation to find something that is strong enough to 
hold an inference, or bear an analogy. 

^ow let Eld. Ditzler answer, and let every man and woman 
who hears me, answer. Is this, can this be the Divine and 
apostolic model ot the polity of the Christian Church ? If 3^ou 
answer no, and 3rou must answer ??o, then no religious organi- 
zation possessing this can, in the language of Bishop Doggett 
be a church or a branch of the Church of Christ. 

Replication. , 

To show still more clearly that "Methodism as it was," was 
a far different thing from "Methodism as it i-^," with its lofty 
and hollow pretentions, as w^ell as to show that it is under- 
stood by the intelligent, we quote from the February number 
of the North British Review : 

"For a long time even after the societies under his care had become 
very numerous, he would not allow his preachers to assemble their people 
during the ordinary hours of public worship on the Lord's day, and to the 
last he refused to give them a general permission to administer the sacra- 
ments. The people who joined Mm, he ivished to remain still imemhers of 
the Established Church, to attend upon her worship, and to receive seal- 



The Church of Christ. 075 

ing ordinances in her communion. This is the position still maintained 
by that section of his followers who call themselves Primitive Methodists. 
Wesley's plans and arrangements were directed so as to afford to those who 
joined his society, advantages for growing in grace, for adorning their 
profession, and for promoting the interests of religion, additional to those 
they might possess as members of the Church of England and attendee 
upon their ordinances, ^e did not intend to form a distinct and sepo.- 
rate Church, and in point of fact did not do so. He does not seem to have 
reached any convictions, which appeared to him to make it men's duty to 
disapprove of the constitution of the Church of England, or to separate from 
her communion. So that Wesleyan Methodism, under its founder, was 
not a Church, and did not profess to be a Church, but only an Institute, 
regulated in its arrangements by present and temporary circumstances, 
and supplementary to the Church of England for promoting the Christian 
good of the community. " 

"Different considerations seem to show that Wesleyanism even yet 
scarcely professes to be a scrip turally organized Church, and if so, it must 
be, in respect to its organization, a device of human wisdom, and there- 
fore not destined to perpetuity, not fitted for permanence." 

' ' Wesley did not profess to be organizing a Church upon a scriptural 
basis. His Institute (Methodism) was the product of Jiis own loisdom and 
sagacity, and must be subject to the fluctuations and instability of all 
merely human things." 

What unparalleled effrontery, then, for Methodists, in the 
face of these facts, to declare that their Society is a Christian 
Church, and scripturally organized! 

Now I wish Elder Ditzler to know that there is a world- 
wide difference hetween originating an organization different 
from anything that can be found in the Bible, different from 
anything the world had ever before seen or heard of, and calling 
it a Church, and organizing a Christian Church. It is true 
that two or three baptized individuals ^an organize a Church, 
provided they adopt the apostolic model of government, and • 
covenant to be governed by the sole authority of Jesus Christ. 

Jesus Christ originated as well as gathered his disciples 
together into a body which he, during his public ministry, 
taught them to call "CAwrcA," Matt, xviii, and there was a 
church — not completed to be sure in all things — -just as 
much as there was on the day of Pentecost, when three thous- 
and members were added to it, and this body of brethren was - 
the body Christ sang in the midst of — so that the prophecy was 
fulfilled, ''in the midst of the Church will I sing praises," etc. 



976 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

!N"o, sir. lam free to say I do not believe that Gocl the 
Father, nor God the Holy Spirit ever thrust out John and 
Charles Wesley to oriiriiiate and set up a chni'''h in opposition 
to and contravention ot that of Jesus Christ, which the}^ did 
do just so certainly as Jesus Christ had a church on earth then 
or now, for Methodism has violently antagonized and is today 
antagonizing and se^.-'king to destroy every other religious 
organization on earth. JN'or do I believe that Jesus Christ 
moved the AVesleys to set up a new church for himself — for 
he himself has declared that a house or kingdom divided 
ac^ainst itself cannot stand, and if he had a church in their dav 
or since, and Methodism was a piart or branch of it, then he 
himself divided his own house and kingdom against itself! 

Mark how he piays upon the words to confuse when he says 
all Baptist churches were organized by human beings, to nul- 
lify my position against men originating a society and calling 
it after Christ's body — Christian Church. A Baptist no more 
than a Methodist society originatedhy men or angels is or can be 
a Christian church, and should not be so called orfellowshipped. 
"Whatever any one man here and there among Baptists may 
hold. Orthodox Baptist teachers do not hold that a company 
of Christian men can start a church by baptizing themselves, 
and if they did^ the word of Grod does not warrant it. He has 
quoted Eld. Ripley a Baptist as admitting his society a church 
though not in a state of order, but Eld. Ditzler's own Bishop, 
Doggett, declares that a body ot Christians not in a state of Gos- 
pel order /. e. orderly constituted, cannot be called or recognized 
as a church at all. To offset Eld. Ripley, I will quote the sen- 
timents of two of the most distinguished Baptists in America, 
one in IN^ew England, and one in the South, who correetl}' rep- 
resent the sentiments of all sound Baptists in America. 

Dr. Wm. Hague^ of Boston, says: 

"However honored may be the history of any church on earth, however 
far it may be extended, with whatever names it may be distinguished 
and adorned, its pretence of being, as to its outward constitution, the true 
Church of Christ, is nullified by the fact that it is a Church established by 
human device. So far as it is established by man, so far as it is a part 
of a human system, just so far, constitutionally considered, it has lost 
the character of a true Church of Christ. So that the mere fact that a 



The Church of Christ. 977 

Church is established by the legislation of a man or men, furnishes a suffi- 
cient reason why Christians should leave it, as having in its constitution 
those elements which are at war with the spiritual nature, the primary 
principles, and the high moral ends of the Christian dispensation." — Chris. 

Statesman, 

Dr. A. M. Poindexter, of Richmond, Ya., says, on theEela- 

tion of Baptists to Unscriptural Church Bodies — 

"Now, if the bodies to which reference has been made are not Scrip- 
tural churches, their ministers cannot be Scripturally ordained ministers. 
The ordination can have no force or validity beyond that which is imparted 
by the body whose act it is ; and if that body is not a Scriptural church, 
of com'se its ordination cannot confer Scriptural authority. 

''In view of these considerations, it follows that Scriptural churches 
should not recognize, in any way, these unscriptural organizations as 
Scriptural — either by word or action, as to the bodies themselves or their 
officers. The churclies of Christ are to oppose all departures from the 
faith as deUvered in the New Testament. They may not fraternize with 
or connive at heresy. And the obligation thus resting on Scriptural 
churches bears also upon every member and every officer of those churches. 
The whole body, and each individual, are called upon by fidelity to 
Christ and the truth to make a solemn, consistent and unceasing protest 
against fundamental error, whether relating to doctrine or to practice ; 
and in the cases reviewed, both doctrine and practice are involved. No 
Baptist can, rightly or consistently, recognize a Pedo baptist church as a 
Scriptural church, or a Pedo baptist minister as a Scriptural minister." 

I perceive the Elder is a little chagrined at the picture of 

his holy people in England, Called Methodists, as shown by his 

father, John Wesley, and asks me if I want to compare the 

piety of my people (Baptists) with his, etc. Comparisons are 

proverbially odious, but I will assure him they would suffer 

nothing in the comparison as to piety, and for what they have 

achieved for the world. 

How he has answered my objections to the local Society in 
this place being a Scriptural church, let the world judge. 
61 



97^ The Great Carrollton Debate, 



DR. DITZLER'S FOURTH SPEECH, 



Gentlemen Moderatoks: — We come now to offset Br. 
Graves' charge, and additionally meet his objections against 
admitting Pedobaptists as forming a part of God's Church, 
by exposing Ms to all the objections he offers and far more, 
and a hundred-fold more damascino^. And we offer none but 
indubitable proof— the most impartial, elaborate, and learned 
historians of the very country where the parties acted, all sup- 
ported by elaborate appended foot-notes containing the docu- 
ments in the original languages then used — German and 
Latin. 

[Mr. Graves interposed to stop Mr. Ditzler — that Baptist 
History had nothing to do with this question. Mr. Ditzler 
contended that Dr. Graves had assailed Methodist History most 
fiercely — reading pages from the worst part of the " Iron 
Wheel," and all this, he claimed, to prove the Methodist were 
not a church. Their late origin, etc., and want of religion in 
its founders proved it, Dr. Graves urged, to be no church.] 
ISTow, not admitting a point he urged, we propose to show 
that all these charges with a thousand-fold force press against 
his church. But remember the facts already put in evidence 
on a former proposition, viz : that the Lord's Supper, or Bap- 
tism is not performed at all — it is not valid, not legal, not an 
ordinance of God unless all the following tacts hold good : 

1st. That he must be immersecL 

2d. For the right purpose. 

3d. With the exact symbolism. 

4th. By the rightful, legal authority. 

5th. As one already/ regenerated. 

If you fail in any one of these points, though all else heright, 
as a chain is never stronger than its weakest links, or one link 
severing is as fatal as if all parted, so here, if either of these 
points fails, no Baptist is baptized, has no right to God's ordi- 
nances, is not in the church, and cannot receive the Lord's 
Supper. All these points have been presented. Now let us 
examine this one feature with which we have now to do — first, 
where did the English, and second, where did the American Baptists 
originate ? We rely solely on their own ablest, best and selected 
Historians, the facts confirmed by all general historians, such 
as Goodrich, Bancroft, Hinton, (Baptist) and others, Drs. Ford, 



The Church of CHkist. 979 

Orchard, Waller, The Texas Baptist Pulpit^ and Dr. J. R. Graves, 
all agree, with their Western Editors, that ^'iVb organization but 
a true Ckurch of Christ visible, has any authority to administer Ohris- 
tian immersion." " The Baptist^'' July 4, 1868, by J. E. 
Graves. [See all the quotations in former proposition on com- 
munion, first Address. 

Benedict page 327, says, "John Smyth, the man who is said 
to have baptized himself, and thereby acquired the name of Se 
Baptist^ is distinctly announced by Mr. Taylor, a Baptist, their 
historian, as 1:he founder of the English General Baptists, and 
that the Society grew out of a division of Robinson's congre- 
gation in Holland." This Smyth, Robinson, Clifton, etc., 
went from England, 1606 (Benedict, 828) Smyth was the chief 
actor, Robinson, the "Eather of the Independents," Ibid. 
There they differed — fell out, quarreled, persecuted each 
other. They got up questions of discord, and "this alarmed 
those with whom Mr. Smyth held communion, and they cast 
him out of th-e Church, [he had been an Episcopal minister- 
was expelled or left, now he is expelled by the Independents.] 

Wales.—" The first Baptist church in Wales was formed 
near Swansea, in that country, in 1649. Mr. John Miles was 
their chief leader, and thev increased to aboiit three hundred 
members by the year 1662." (Backus 1, 120, Bap. Lib.) "And 
at the house of J. Butterworth in Rehoboth, in 1663, John 
Miles, Elder, and six others, solemnly covenanted together as 
a Church of Christ,'^ in Plymouth colony, America, having 
been driven out of Wales in 1662. In Swansea (America) 
" the church has continued by succession ever since, and is 
the fourth Baptist church in America." (Backus, 1, 120), 
The ridiculous and amusing myths that Benedict indulges 
in about churches in Wales (Baptist) a la Orchard, " although 
not always congregated in churches," (344) are not worthy 
of note. 

American Baptists. ^As most interest centers here, let us 
be very full and explicit. Let us see how Baptist writers that 
are now writing up matters to serve the succession purpose, 
write. Dr. Ford's " Origin of Baptists," so strongly commend- 
ed by Dr. Graves, published by him, says, p. 23. "Five years 
anterior to the above law, in 1638, Hansard KnoUys, a name 
enshrined in the temple of soul liberty, gathered together 
a Baptist Church," etc. Dr. Graves, The Baptist, October 30^ 
1875, by a correspondent, says: H-. Knollys gathered the 
church at Dover in 1638. The church at Providence was 
formed in 1639." 

J^ow, what are the facts? Dr. Backus, who "copied from 
their records/' in giving his facts, thus tells it : "Mr, Hansard 



980 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Knollys was a minister in the Church of England for nine 
yearSj and then was so cruelly persecuted therein, that he 
came over to Boston in the spring of 1638; but their rulers 
called him an Antinomian, and would not suffer him there; 
therefore he went to Dover on Piscataqua river, where he 
preached nearly four years, and then returned to England, 
and arrived in London in December, 1641. As the war broke 
out there the next year, liberty for various opinions, was 
caused thereby (under Cromwell) and he became a Baptist, 
and gathered a church in London/^etc, (vol. 1, 103, Bap. Lib.) 
Benedict treats with silent contempt the assertions of Ford, 
etc. Backus gives the facts and shows that Knollys was an 
Episcopal minister, not only in 1638, but till after 1641, after 
his return to England. That is the way these partisans who 
have a purpose to serve, to keep up bigotry and war, record 
history. 

Dr. Graves now comes in more immediately on the historic 
question. In Ihe Baptist of October 2d, 1875, in a carefully 
prepared and elaborated editorial, Dr. Graves says: " This little 
affair [Roger William's church, 1639] in four months, came 
to nothing, and Williams repudiated it as an abortion and 
became a Familist His self-baptized society died without a 
successor. It was no Baptist church, was not intended to be, 
and consequently no Baptist minister or church ever proceed- 
ed from it. Therefore Roger Williams was never a Baptist 
One year before this [before 16o9, i. e., 1638] the Island of 
Newport, R. 1. had been settled by a colony of Baptists under 
John Clark, who organized in that year a regular Baptist 
church of which he was pastor. This was the first Baptist 
church in America.'' He then glorifies him at great length, 
as a very Copernicus and Keplar in history, in his sphere. 
Now for the facts. 

Elder Backus, A. M. (Hist. Baptists in K'ew Eng., vol. i, 
ch. iii, p. 101, 102, Bap. Lib.) says: '^ When such cruelty was 
experienced at Boston, Mr. John Clark, etc., etc., concluded 
to move away; and when they came to Providence, Mr. Wil- 
liams advised them to go to the Island of Aquidneck, and he 
went with them to Plymouth, etc." There they "signed a 
covenant on March 7th, 1638, in which they said. We do here 
solemnly, in the presence of Jehovah [now for a church, a 
genuine Baptist church — Dr. Graves' beau ideal of a spiritual 
church. Jehovah is invoked — hear] incorporate ourselves 
into [now for the church] a body politic, and as he shall help 
will submit our persons lives and estates unto our Lord Jesus 
Christ," etc. Then follow their names. "This, I copied from 
their records," says Backus 102. 



The Church of Christ. 981 

Benedict gives more fully all the details, exactly as above, 
but more in detail. He shows that " a Synod, held at New- 
ton, now Cambridge "found" that their country was infected 
with no less than eighty-two heretical opinions ^^^ and solemnly 
condemned." "Wheelwright and Mrs. Ann Hutch'nson, both 
Pedobaptists, were banished the jurisdiction, for what was 
called Antinomianism, etc. Mr. John Clark, an eminent 
physician, made a proposal " to remove out of a jurisdiction 
so full of bigotry and intolerance," 462. " At Providence 
they were kindly received by Mr. Williams, and being con- 
sulted about their designs, he readily presented two places 
before them — Sowarms and Aquidneck, now Rhode Island, 
etc." " On their return, the 7th of March, 1638, the men, to 
the number of eighteen (18) incorporated themselves a body 
politic, and chose Wm. Coddington their Judge or Chief 
Magistrate." Benedict then gives the words of their compact 
as Backus has it, p. 463. 

" The following spring (1639), Mr. Clark, with several 
others, removed to the south part of the Island, and com- 
menced a settlement, to which they gave the name of New- 
port. The Governors are now named. " March 12, 1640, they 
changed their plan of government, and elected a governor, 
deputy governor," and disfranchised four men, and suspended 
others from from voting in their elections." Backus, 102 of 
vol. i. 1^0 Church yet, nor baptism. And there is Dr. Graves' 
liberty-loving Clark, finally "Mr. Williams went over to 
England and obtained a charter w^hich included them in his 
government." Backus, I. 102. Now for Dr. Graves' New- 
port Church, founded " one year before 1839, no trace is in 
existeilce as late as 1640, but " for the origin of this Church, 
we must go back to 1644." " Bev. John Clark, M. A., the 
founder ot this church, became its Jirst minister." So testify 
Backus, Benedict, Callender, Centennial Sermon by Dr. 
Elton, p. 210-212; Benedict, 465. Obadiah Holmes was 
his successor as "second pastor of this church." Dr. Graves 
asserts that they settled at Newport 1638. They did not 
settle or go to Newport till the spring of 1639. So far from 
being Baptists, not a Baptist w^as in the crew. A Synod con- 
demned the opinions — "Pedobaptists " were the parties ban- 
ished, so say the Baptist historians, and Clark was simply a 
layman and physician. Instead of organizing a church of 
any kind, they incorporated themselves into "a body politic" 
— a state. Williams was the one w^ho received (and pointed 
out to them a home), this wandering band. Alas! to what 
desperate ends and resolves party spirit drives men. Whence 



982 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

came Clark's baptism ? I^o immersionists had yet come from 
England. And had any of Clark's band had it, as they were 
so near Eoger Williams — he selected their home — ^went with 
them, and 1640, incorporated them in his little government — 
had a Baytist existed among them, so near, woald he have had 
Ezekiei Holliman, a layman, and onlif sprinkled, to immerse 
him, and he in turn immerse Holliman and all the rest ? Thus 
we see the latest dodge fails most signally, and exhibits Bap- 
tist historians in the true light of their favorite method of 
recording history. Among those Roger Williams baptized 
were Thos. Olney and Wm. Wickenden (Wigginton). Backus, 
I. 102; Benedict, 450. 

The book Dr. Graves adduces to refute the above, " First 
Church in Providence," by S. Adlam, tries to evade the 
force of the facts by asserting, very boldly, that IFi(?Z:e?ic/en and 
Olney organized a church in 1652 — i\iQ existing Chxxv oh \ What 
care we for the existing Church ? The church presided over by 
Wickenden, was an offshoot of the other. Adlam tries to 
prove that IsTewport Church was founded " eight years before" 
1652 — i. e., 1644, by Clark. But the ojily pretense is a mere 
conjecture against universal history, against the inscription on 
the old Providence bell, that it is inscribed on the tablet in its 
meeting house, that it was organized 1639. Adlam, p. 7. 
Adlam asserts Olney was the on^mr^^ pastor. He was baptized 
by Roger Williams, and it involves absurdity to say that he 
founded it so late as 1652, yet baptized 1639 with all the rest. 
Ko one, not even Adlam denies any of the facts. Olney had 
been a sprinkled Congregationalist, and came to Williams' 
party 1638. Staples hits it when he shows there were two 
churches at Providence — one 1639, the other difterent in prin- 
ciple, 1652. 

But Dr. Graves' dodge, quotino; Clark's tomb inscription is 
astonishing. It does not say when he organized the Church at 
Newport at all. It says, as shown by all Baptist historians, 
that he was " one of the founders of the first Baptist Church 
in ;N'ewport,'^that he "came to that Island from Massachusetts 
in March, 1638," but does not tell lohen he organized the 
Church. But Mr, Adlam states he organized it eight years 
before 1652, which exactly accords with the facts and dates 
we have given. 

What now becomes of all Dr. Graves' efforts to evade the 
facts as to their origin from Roger Williams' church ? Where 
did Clark, the physician, get his baptism from with his Pedo- 
baptist exiles, save from Williams ? ISTow this Olney was bap- 
tized by Williams, as Backus, Benedict and all agree. He 
became Williams' successor as pastor till 1682, Backus, 102. 



The Church of Christ. 983 

Wickeiiden, among the first accessions soon after the organ- 
ization, 1639, and so baptized hj the illegally baptized, bap- 
tizes Win. Vaugn, who, with Wickenden, organized the 
second Baptist Church at Newport, and was its pastor till 1677. 
"A church had been formed in Providence under the care of 
Rev. Mr. Wickenden" of which he was pastor for many years. 
Now all these early pastors, Olney, Chacl. Brown, Wickenden, 
John Clark all had their baptism and membership through 
Roger Williams. Hence all illegal, by Baptist rule as now 
interpreted, and the Baptists are not a church in any sense. 
Their baptisms, pastors, all come down through these chan- 
nels. 

What is the good, what the value, what profit to Christianity 
are all these absurd and unsupported claims? As Providence 
Church had successors long after 1682, what becomes of the 
bold assertion of Ford, Dr. Graves, etc., that it was no Bap- 
tist Church, and came to nothing in four months? Backus and 
Benedict show that twelve join it in a very short time, and that 
years afterwards it flourished. The English Baptists started by 
baptizing each other, as Williams and PloUiman did. So testifies 
the Baptist historian. In Germany Anabaptists did the same. 
In America it is the same. Of all churches, therefore, your's 
is the most disjointed, irregular, and destitute of authority. 

You claim descent through Peter Bruis (Petrobrusians) 
and Henry, founder of the Henricians. So say Ford, Orchard, 
Benedict and Dr. Graves. The first was a priest, the latter a 
monk and deacon of Clung, in the Roman Church, and the 
only baptism they had was in infancy in that church. Wick- 
lifie and his Lollard disciples are claimed by these Baptists as 
Baptists. Wickliffe Hved and died a member of the Catholic 
Church, baptized in infancy, never in adult age, and his Lol- 
lards were '' poor priests," who died 'Catholics. (Giesler iv, 
246-7.) Is it not wonderful that these men, supporters of 
Pope and hierarchy, are held as Baptists, as a Church there- 
fore, yet we are denounced as mere Societies? 

So John Huss and Jerome of Prague — claimed as Baptists 
in the chain running to the Apostles, lived and died in the 
Catholic Church, though as the others just named, protesting 
against such increasing abuses — all practiced Infant Baptism. 
The so-called Anabaptists of third and fourth, and succeeding 
centuries, baptized again, solely and alone because they split 
from Rome on mere questions of policy and discipline — had 
bishops, priests, confessionals, infant baptism as fully as the 
Roman Church. They are not Anabaptists in the sense those 
were in the sixteenth century at all Yet Baptist historians 
take advantage of the mere word, and deceive their readers. 



984 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The only parties that failed to baptize infants, as Manichseans, 
did not baptize adults either. This Wall shows at great 
length. Yet Baptist historians so tell these facts as to make 
it appear these sects opposed infant baptism. Alas, when 
thus history has to be treated ! 

Dr. Graves opened the discussion on the Mode of Baptism 
with a glorification of Baptists as contrasted with other Chris- 
tians. On every proposition this has been repeated. He has 
repeatedly, in every proposition, gone out of his way, to assail 
as well as make flings at other churches, where there was no 
call for it, as well as to eulogize his own sect. He has spoken 
of the tyranny of bishops, ministers, etc., as if they were all on 
one side, and as if the Methodist church had any hand in such 
things. He, especially on the proposition jet before us, com- 
pared our church or people to the mud as compared with the 
flour — the true bread, with only a little flour mixed in — a body 
palsied, withered, — a mass of babes — unconscious babes as its 
membership on the one hand, and unconverted, unregenerate 
sinners, unbelievers on the other. Our baptism and Lord'e 
supper, he avows, are given for regeneration, converting sin- 
ners. Oar Bishops are charged with flagrant forgery. He 
quotes the bold assertions of his lowest, bitterest, most reck- 
less partisans as the only evidence of the ugliest part of all 
this. For the rest, he garbles his extracts, misconstrues the 
language, and perverts the meaning of our Ritual, wiietherby 
accident or design, we pause not to enquire — the doing it 
through a want of correct iiiformation is as injurious as though 
designed. Our membership is so corrupt, carnal, unregener- 
ate, that we are not a church. 

We warned and urged him not to compel us to expose his 
side of the house. His argument is, we are not a church 
because of these thins^s and our late oriofin. 

Now, Sirs, we propose to examine into sonie of their teach- 
ings, their origin, and their history and membership, and test 
whether such things as he alleges destroy, in his estimation, 
church existence. Having utterly refuted his unsupported as- 
sertions and charges, and shown the glorious history and deeds 
of Methodism, we can well aftbrd to compare notes. 

Benedict, p. 60, 81, ranks the Anabaptists of Germany of 
the sixteenth century as Baptists. Quoting Orchard as his 
farther authority, he endorses the following, he condensing it : 

" He [Luther] and his colleagues had now to dispute their 
way w\th hosts of Baptists all over Germany, Saxony, Thurin- 
gia, Switzerland, and other kingdoms, for several years. Con- 
ferences on baptism were held in difterent kingdoms, which 
continued from 1516 to 1527. The support which the baptists 



The Church of Christ. 985 

had from Luther's writings [used, garhled, etc., as authorities 
adduced by them, as a rule, always are]made the reformer's ef- 
forts of little ef][ect." Yes, they soon paralyzed his arm. That is 
too true — sadly true. Catholics saw how to encourage the mad- 
men, and hence the quotations Baptists can pile up as Pedobap- 
tist concessions, etc. They were made to encourage and in- 
flame rebellious and seditious parties, so that the secular arm 
might be invoked as it was by Catholic Princes and Monarchs 
to crush all Protestantism and Liberty. Dr. Ford, a Baptist on 
Origin of Baptists, 52-4i, dechires them "Baptists." Orch- 
ard, the Baptist Historian, endorsed and published b}^ Dr. J. E.- 
Graves, p. 349, says: '' Of all the teachers of religion in Ger- 
many at this period, the Baptists best understood the doctrine 
of civil and religious liberty; to them, therefore the oppressed 
Boors, as has been observed, looked for counsel. The tyranny 
of the Catholics and Lutherans was equal in every thing, 
except extent. Luther never 'pretended to dissent from the churchy 
he only proposed to disown the Pope. [Italics his']. * * Among 
the baptists, one of the most eminent was Thomas Munzer 
[Munser.] * * He had been a priest, but became a disci- 
ple of Luther, etc." Of the Anabaptists of these times 
Orchard, p. 362, says in italics : " An unsjjeakable number of 
baptists preferred death in its worst forms^ says Mosheim, to are- 
traction of their sentiments. Mosheim says no such thing. 
Orchard says this was "in almost all the countries of Europe." 
Baptist historians so distort all quotations, so garble authori- 
ties, as that you never, as a rule, get the meaning, or the real 
saying of the author. Moreover, their historians and writers, 
Tombes, Danvers, Delaune, Crosbj^ Stennett, Booth, Robin- 
son, Lvimey, Jones, Orchard, not only thusact, but rely mainly 
on the lowest class of former inferior and unknown at large 
and wholly unrecognized writers by any class of scholars or 
historians, for their statements as well as on "the old works of 
Catholics," (Benedict, p. 62), who as inquisitors never exam- 
ined into facts, made their loose statements, applied to vari- 
ous dissenting parties the most odious and hateful of terms — 
Anabaptists being one of them, and solely and alone from tu^^^ 
sources and treated in this way, do Baptists of the present day 
seek to make out their case! ! 

Why, Dr. Graves and his brethren now go back on all their 
authorities in this country. Dr. Backus, whom Benedict pro- 
nounces " their (Baptists') indefatigable historian, (p. 422) who 
was selected for this purpose by the Baptists because of his 
ability and familiarity with the facts from early life, and " some 
of our [their] chief ministers requested me [him] to engage to 
write our history, in 1771," (Baptist Library 1, 89). He en- 



986 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

gaged in it, and of it he says: "I spent much of my time 
[between thirty and forty years — 1771 to 1801, besides the 
long years of study in these matters,] in going to and search- 
ing of the records of the old Colonies of Plymouth, Massachu- 
setts, Rhode Island,' Connecticut, etc. I also searched many 
other records and papers, as well as books of various kinds, 
and enquired of intelligent persons, to get all the light I could 
from every quarter, and our first volume was published in 
1777, the second in 1781, and I never heard anything pub- 
lished against the work." He had access to " the publications 
of the Historical Society at Boston,'' also. This was all gotten 
up before the great wars of 1776 and 1812, when the records 
and facts were all on hand. He lived over a hundred years 
nearer the time than the men Dr. Graves now relies on. He 
had no succession theories to support — only truth. Xow they 
have their wild hobby to support. He [Backus] is sup- 
ported by Benedict, by Pres. Wm. Grimmell, Professor in 
Brown University-, by Ctosby, by Goodrich, Bai] croft, by all 
the facts. But if all these Baptist authorities named, Crosby, 
Grammell, Backus, and Benedict, and all the old Baptist 
chroniclers in whom Backus found help are all false — utterly 
untrue, confirms it not what I say — as historians, Baptists are 
wholly incorrect, one-sided, unreliable ? 

Bunyan is repudiated and denounced by Dr. Graves. R. 
Williams never was a Baptist, Benedict, Backus, etc., are 
false, and we know Orchard, Ford, Robinson and Jones are 
utterly unreliable. Seeing this is so, let us now o-ive a his- 
tory of these so-called Baptists of Germany, as the facts are, 
and are in hand now before me on mv table (in Giesler, vol. 
V, 31^ to 356; Hase,4:Zl to 601: Alelancthon's Hist, Th. Mun- 
zer, Walch xvi, 206; Bullinger in Fussli, v, 121, iii,"229; 
Mosheim, 492 to 494, sec. iii, part ii.) We copy from Giesler, 
who supports every point with elaborate supporting foot-notes 
and documents most overwliehning, as he does on all leading 
points, and is the most reliable historian, as to facts, that ha's 
ever written. 

"The first beginnings of these evils are to be sought for in 
the disturbances at Zwikau, in 1521. Thomas Munzer, who 
was minister at Zwikau," joined by " Stubner, Stork, and 
other leaders of the same furious complexion, and excited the 
most unhappy tumults and commotions in Saxony," etc. 
(Mosheim). They taught "disregard of the written Word of 
God, the dead letter," by the "incarnation of Christ, men are at 
once entirely deified by God." (Giesler). The marriage and 
marriage-bed of the unbelieving and carnal, was whoredom 



TiiE Church of Christ. 987 

and devilish brothel. God revealed his will in dreams. 

''But the Anabaptists in several places were encouraged thereby to 
adopt violent measures in order to carry out their fanatical designs. Ear- 
ly in 1525, Thomas Munzer made his appearance again in Thuringia, and 
relying on the support of his former alliances, he usurped dominion to 
himself, at Mulhausen in his character of prophet, in order to bring about 
a complete reformation in Church and State, and spread it through the 
surrounding countries by desolation and pillage," 

"Munzer said on his trial by torture, ' He had stirred up this rebellion 
in order that Christendom might be brought to an equality, and that the 
nobles and gentry, who would not stand by the Gospel, and join their 
league, when invited to do so fraternally, should be banished and put to 
death. Their article was omnia simul commKvia, i. e., all things should be 
common, and distribution should be made to every man according to his 
need, as opportunity served And whatsoever Duke, Count or Lord would 
not do this after having been summoned to do so, his head should be cut 
oft, or he should be hung.' Compare Munzer's letters to the miners of 
Mansfield : 'Let not your sword cool in blood ; forge Pinkepant on the 
arrival of Nimrod (i. e., the wicked nobles) cast his town to the ground; 
it is not possible so long as they live that ye should be free from the fear 
of man. The Word of God cannot be spoken to you while they rule over 
you. On! on ! on ! while ye have the day. God goes before you, follow, 
etc." He always signed his name "Thomas Munzer, with the sword of 
Gideon. " 

" It was Simon Stumpf, Grebel and Felix Manz, who invited them to 
constitute a peculiar church, in which should be a Christian people living, 
with all innocence, cleaving close to the Gospel, burdened neither with 
taxes, nor usury, nor any thing of the kind. On this occasion these ex- 
pressions were used : ' It were nothing, unless the priests were put to 
death. Christians were neither bound to pay taxes nor tithes All things 
must be common ; there neither could nor should be any such persons in 
the church, who professed themselves to be without sin.' When they 
were foiled in this attempt they first began to impugn infant baptism. 

Afterwards these fanatics at Twich, more than 

ever exasperated by their conferences with Zwingle, proceeded to entire de- 
nial of infant baptism, and so to rebaptize. The first man who allowed 
himself to be baptized by Grebel in Zurich was George Blaurock; after- 
wards many persons were baptized by Blaurock and Mantz in Zollikon, 
where John Brodli was minister, and now the fanaticism of the party 
broke out openly. 

" The Anabaptists maintain that they are the only true church well- 
pleasing to God and the community of Christ, and teach that they who 
are received by rebaptism into their community, should have no com- 
munion with the Evangelical or any other church. 

"I am the introducer of baptism '• * "* together with my elect 
brethren in Christ, Conrad Grebel, and Felix Mantz ■•• '•■ * Luther 
with his faction is a thief and murderer ; Zwingle also, and Leo Judse 
with their faction, are thieves and murderers." Gies. v, 356 

Mosheim says, 492, 493 : 

"It was this detestable faction that, in 1521, began ther fanatical work, 
under the guidance of Munzer, Stubner, Storck, and other leaders of the 
game furious complexion, and excited the most unhappy tumults and 
commotions in Saxony and the adjacent countries. . . They related a 
great number of visions and revelations with which they pretended to have 
been favored from above. But when they saw that these methods of 
making prosetytes were not attended with such rapid success as they fond- 
ly expected, and that the ministry of Luther, and other eminent reformers, 
proved detrimental to their cause, they had recourse to more expeditious 
measures, and madly attempted to propagate their fanatical doctrine by 
force of arms. 



gSS The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Miinzer and his associates assembled in 1525 a numerous army, chiefly 
composed of the peasants of Suabia, Thm-ingia, Franconia, and Saxony, 
and, at the head of this credulous and deluded rabble, declared war against 
all laws, governments and magistrates of every kind, under the chimerical 
pretext that Christ was now to take the reins of civil and ecclesiastical 
government into his owm hands, and to rule alone over the nations. But 
this seditious crowd was routed and dispersed without much difficulty 
by the elector of Saxony, and other princes. Munzer was ignominiously 
put to death, and his factious counsellors were scattered abroad in different 
places." 

"Those who distinguished themselves by the enormity of theh conduct 
in this infamous sect, were Louis Hetzler, Balthazar Hubmeyer, Felix 
Mantz, Conrad Grebel, Melchoh Hoffman, and George Jacob, who, if 
theh power had seconded their designs, would have involved all Switzer- 
land, Holland and Germany >in tumult and bloodshed." 

Mosheim continues on page 493 : 

"It is, nevertheless, certain that the greatest part of these wretched 
sufferers owed their unhappy fate to their rebellious principles and tumult- 
uous proceedings, and that many also w^ere punished for their temerity 
and imprudence, which had led them to the commission of various 
crimes. 

There stands upon record a most shocking instance of this, in the dread- 
ful commotions that were excited at Munster, in 1533, by some Dutch 
Anabaptists, who chose that citj'^ as the scene of their horrid operations, 
and committed in it such deeds as would surpass all credibility, were they 
not attested in a manner that excludes every doubt and uncertainty. "-•■ * * 
The bold ring-leaders of this furious tribe were John Matthison, John 
Bockhold, a tailor of Leyden, one Girard, with some others, whom the 
blmd rage of enthusiasm, or the still more culpable principles of sedition, 
had embarked in this extravagant and desperate cause. They made 
themselves masters of the city of Munster, deposed the magistrates, and 
committed all the enormous crimes and ridiculous follies, which the most 
perverse and infernal imagination could suggest. John Bockhold was 
proclaimed king and legislator of this new hierarchy ; but his reign was 
transitory, and his end deplorable ; for Munster was, in 1536, retaken 
after a long siege by its bishop and sovexeign. Count Waldick, the new 
Jerusalem of the Anabaptists destroj^ed, and its monarch jDunished with 
a most painful and ignominious death." 

In a note, page 494, Mosheim says farther : 

"John of Leyden, the Anabaptist King of Munster, had taken it into 
his head that God had made him a present of the cities of Amsterdam, 
Deventer and Wesel ; in consequence of which, he sent bishops to these 
three places to preach his Gospel of sedition and carnage. About the 
beginning of the year 1535, twelve Anabaptists, of whom five were 
women, assembled at midnight in a private house at Amsterdam. One 
of them, who was a tailor by profession, fell into a trance, and, after hav- 
ing preached and prayed during a space of four hours, stripped himself 
naked, threw his clothes into the fire, and comnaanded all the assembly 
to do the same, in which he was obeyed without the least reluctance. He 
then ordered them to folio whim through the streets in this state of nature, 
which they accordingly did, howling and bawling out, ' Wo ! wo ! ! the 
wrath of God ! wo to Babylon ! ' When, after being seized, and brought 
before the magistrates, clothes were offered them to cover their indecency, 
they refused them obstinately, and cried aloud, ' We are the naked truth ! ' 
When they were brought to the scaffold they sang, danced, and dis- 
covered all, the marks of an enthusiastic phrenzy *' 

In the Black Forest, Tenger, in Zwabia, to the Rhenish Province — ^in 
Franconia, Thuringia and Saxony, as well as Zurich, they carried anarchy 
and msurrection. They claimed that they were subject to no law nor 



The Church of Christ. 989 

prince. They succeeded in forcing the princes to submit to them in Bohe- 
mia. Once they had roused Zwingle's scruples on infant baptism. In 
Franconia, Alsace and Zwabia there already existed much discontent on 
account of oppression and abuses, so that they were as a spark of fire to a 
magazine, and fVightful cruelty attended their insurrection there, 1525. 
At Weinsburg they murdered Count Lewis of Helfenstein. In the Black 
Forest they clamored for equality. That granted, they demanded blood. 
From the Black Forest the tri-colored standard of revolt was carried in 
triumph by the frenzied rabble. They resolved to force submission to their 
plans. They destroyed granaries, emptied cellars, demolished castles and 
fired convents. They had started out with the cry of equality — they now 
demanded blood and subjugation. The alarmed and undefended towns 
opened their gates and made common cause. As they went, images were 
defaced, crucifixes demolished, and even women swaggered through the 
streets, brandishing weapons before the monks. They captured the 
Counts of Lowenstein, whom they treated with marked ignominy, and 
compelled them to swear to their creed. They captured Wurtzburg and 
forced back the regular troops. Spires, Hesse, Alsace and the Palatinate 
were compelled to adopt their articles. The Margrave of Baden fled be-^ 
fore them. Bavaria, Westphalia, Lorraine, the Tyrol and Saxony were 
threatened with a like uprising. The citadel of Wurtzburg was still held 
by the regular troops.- The Eeformers, shut up in the citadel, were fear- 
fully assaulted, and the battle raged. Night witnessed the protracted 
struggle. The peasants were bloodthirsty, and the citadel determined. 
In the darkness of the night ' ' the fortress, lighted up by a thousand battle- 
fires, seemed to resemble a towering giant pouring forth flames, and con-^ 
tending in the midst of bursts of thunder for the salvation of the empire 
from the savage bravery of infuriated hordes." Thus it continued till 
two in the morning. A force was coming against them from without, 
and the miserable fugitives were overthrown with fearful slaughter. They 
now reaped a terrible retribution. They had shown no mercy, and unfor- 
tunately received none in their hour of disaster. Their victorious enemy 
hung them at the road side. They put out their eyes. They imprisoned 
those who had been fenced in with the insurgents, and put to death many 
quiet and innocent people who happered to be in that region. 

In Thuringia Munzer suppressed the lawful authority and usurped all 
authority. '*We must exterminate with the sword, like Joshua, the 
Canaanitish nations," he cried. He pfllaged convents and set on foot a 
community of goods. The lowest classes ceased to work and levied on 
the wealthier. If one asked a flitch of meat, a truss of hay, a piece of 
cloth, and it was refused, hanging was the penalty. Hearing of what was 
going on in Southern Germany, Munzer imagined his time to reign had 
come. He called for blood and carnage. "Forward," was his cry, 
" Heed not the cries of the ungodly — be you pitiless — let your swords be 
ever tinged with blood," Such was the madness that inflamed the heart 
of this man. The peasantry rose en masse. Mansfeld, Stotberg, Hesse, 
Brunswick and Schwarzburg joined his standard. They plundered con- 
vents. They destroyed the library of Reinhardsbrunn and violated the 
tombs of the Landgraves. The whole Reformation was threatened with 
overthrow^, and the man who faced the Emperor and all Rome undaunted 
trembled before the madmen. The fanatic now signed himself "Munzer, 
armed with the sword of Gideon." Philip, Margrave of Hesse, drew the 
sword to meet the mob. Several dukes joined them on their way. Mun- 
zer had plenty of cannon, but no powder. The princes, in pity, proposed 
peace when they had surrounded the rabble. But the fanatic assured 
them God woul^ come to their rescue. Just then a rainbow appeared in 
the clouds, and he seized it as an omen of good. He would receive all the 
balls of the enemies in his sleeve. To exasperate the enemy and show 
his contempt for them, he ordered the envoy from the princes to be 
crueUy put to death. May 15, 1525, Philip made the attack. The fanatics 



99© The Great Carrollton Debate. 

began to sing and gazed for heaven to interpose. A volley from the 
cannon of the prmces dispelled then- dulusion, when they fled in every 
dh^ection. Five thousand perished, and their leader lost his head. (Ditz^ 
ler's Phil, of Church His.) 

And these are the madmen that Drs. Ford, Graves' bj en- 
dorsing Orchard, Benedict, etc., claim as Baptists, and one of 
the great links in that chain that runs their succession back 
to John the Baptizer ! ! They will not fellowship us, nor allow 
that we are a church, nor commune even with our people that 
are dipped in the baptismal act, because their baptism was not 
valid, not being by one in the succession. But here they ac- 
cept as genuine Baptists, priests of Rome and Catholics, who 
left that faith, but whose only baptism and ordinances were 
through Rome. Alas, for consistency ! 

!N'ow, Sir, there is the origin the first existence of Baptist 
churches. They began in 1521. Their first preacher and founder 
was a Roman priest, a murderer and a most reckless instigator 
of robbery, rapine and persecution. 

Then your first people in England were fanatics, persecutors, 
revilers, as Benedict, your greatest American historian puts 
in proof, p. 328, 329 ; 334-5, quoted by us in the first Address 
on this Proposition. The first thing your John Clark govern- 
ment did was to disfranchise and suspend the exercise of the 
rights of a number of their small band. So that in Germany, 
" Baptists" began in civil war, rapine, blood — in ignorance 
and debauchery — a community of goods and wives. In Eng- 
land they began in bigotry, a fierce persecution of their own 
people, put in evidence by their own standard historians as 
above, and pursued the same course in the American colonies, 
and now repudiate the only men of note or ability, that were 
among them. And to-day Dr. Graves can recognize as Bap- 
tists the Roman Catholic Wicklifie, Huss, Jerome, Waldo, 
who never questioned the right and power of priestly abso- 
lution, Archbishops, Cardinals, confessional, unity of church 
and state, baptismal regeneration, purgatory — these are claimed 
as Baptists because simply they objected to refusing wine 
to the people in the Lord's Supper, the reading of the Bible 
and a very few other such points, while we, who repudiate a 
hundred such errors, and press the Bible on our people, they 
cannot recognize even as a church. 

But what care we for their recognition ? "We ask no 
acceptance. We plead for no accommodation. Methodism, 
that transcends all Baptist churches in her standards on piety, 
zeal and devotion in her membership and ministry, that has a 
government strictly based on the Kew Testament model; 
that to-dav is as fresh as the dew that bejewels the petals of 



The Chui^ch of Christ. 991 

the lily and the blushing buds of the rose, stands forth before 
the world clothed in the robes of diviner authority and with 
the sceptre of an invincible authority in her hand. She spoke 
to the infidelity of an age of scoffers, and their fury subsided. 
The Bolingbrokes, Humes, the voluptuous Chesterfields 
and Gibbons became abashed and stood rebuked before 
her immaculate presence. Baptist slothfulness and ignorance 
gave way before it, and her intolerance stood confounded. 
STot enumerating any babes, counting as w^e do only adults, 
no probationers, Methodism to-day numbers two to one against 
the Baptists throughout the United States or Europe. We 
have in the United States over, largely over, three millions of 
adult members. We go by the national statistics. 

And now what care we for the rage and fury and abuse of 
our foes ? Let them rage, let them swagger, let them froth 
at the mouth and gnash their teeth. Vain is their insolence, 
impotent their rage and harmless their spite. The surging 
billows of their infuriated bigotry may dash on against the 
rock whose imposing form and solid shaft towers sublimely 
above the rage of their malice ; we repose in quiet and in 
peace. 

"As some tall cliff that lifts its awful form, 
Swells from the vale and midway leaves the storm. 
Though round its breast the rolling clouds are spread. 
Eternal sunshine settles on its head." 

Why, sir, he dares to asperse our membership. He pre- 
sumes to assail their piety. They are only too glad to hang 
upon our skirts, shelter in our wake, and feed upon the husks 
of our better food. They gladly gather up the crumbs from 
our tables. Why, sir, the Baptist Church is a mere hanger- 
on to our ropes. Methodism is like one of our majestic 
steamers that moves up the current of the grand father of 
waters with an ease and power that overcomes all forces 
against it, and the Baptists are a mere tow-boat swinging be- 
hind, drawn on by the tremendous forces that impel the 
grander vessel of honor. Yes, sir, members and ministers 
that we expel for immorality, as oft I have personally known, 
they gladly accept a3 ministers and members, good enough 
for Baptists, then what must be our real, living membership 
and ministers? — [^Timeout 



992 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' FOURTH REPLY. 



ARGUMENT. 

Mr. President. — When I closed I was urging my thrid 
objection to Methodism, on the ground that its entire polity 
was unscriptural. I read from his own Bishop Doggett, whose 
words he may not question, that a body of Christians could 
not be considered a Christian Church, unless organized after 
the model found in the New Testament. This I approved. 
Then I showed from Cookman's work, published and endorsed 
by the General Conference, that the government of the Metho- 
dist Church was symbolized by the '^ Great Iron Wheel." 

I want to hear Eld. Ditzler assail Cookman and this Wheel, 
when I will show you that he borrowed the illustration from 
the Father of the System. 

The question is, Can Eld. Ditzler find the model of this 
Wheel-Church or polity in the 'New Testament ? Will he at- 
tempt to do so ? Will he claim that it is there ? This is the 
plain issue to-day. Bishop Doggett says emphatically unless 
you can find this identical Wheel-power governmnnt in the 
Kew Testament, Methodist Societies, Conferences, Quarterly, 
Annual, District, General, separably^ or all together, cannot he 
considered a Church, or branch of a Church of Christ. 

He has already impliedly taught that the lN"ew Testament 
does not afford a divinely fixed model of a Christian Church 
as a class of Hierarchalists do, and I may as well meet this 
right here. Is it not evident that the Judean churches were 
considered as models by Paul, who praised the Thessalonians 
for following their example : nor were the customs of different 
people allowed to influence churches in different provinces, but 
the teachers of religion throughout the world were to follow 
Paul's example. This model imitated, occasioned a harmony 
in practice for one hundred years. If there is no form, then 
the Scriptures cannot be a perfect rule of faith and practice; 
each province, town or society, may legislate without giving 
offense to the King of Zion ; and consequently, every age, 
from new customs, might have a new form of Church govern- 
ment. Yet Jesus Christ has forbidden anything to be added 
to his word; and one feature of the Man of Sin is, that he 
should " change laws in God's temple ;" but every plan not 



The Church of Christ. 993 

of Scriptural authority shall be taken away, and every inno- 
vator in Christ's kingdom shall meet v^ith his displeasure. 
The unity enjoined, the discipline established, the example 
left, and the accountability of each servant for his conduct in 
the service of God, prove there is a settled law for their 
o^uidance. 

Historians are agreed that the apostles strictly patterned 
the churches they constituted after the model of the church 
which Christ himself organized, and which is called the 

Church at Jerusalem. 

Geisler says .• " The new churches everywhere formed themselves on 
the model of ^^Q mother CMirch at Jerasalem.— ^Ch. Dis. Vol. i., § 29. 

MoSHEiM says: " That form of the primitive churches which was 
derived from, the Church of Jerusalem, erected and organized by the 
apostles themselves, must be accounted divine. — Vol. i. p. 81. 

McLean says: "This Church [of Jerusalem], so constituted, is the 
acknowledged pattern or model, by which other Christian churches were 
formed." 

J^ow let us examine the claims of Cookman and Wesley's 
Wheel-form-Church. 

If there is any part of it that has anv claim to be considered 
a churchy it is that to which the majority of the members be- 
long — the local society — and this is the only part brought 
under discussion by our question — What arc its governmental 
characteristics ? 

1. While the local Societv here in Carrollton admits mem- 
bers not warranted by God's ^ord, and thus forfeits its Scrip- 
tural claims, no active minister — its own pastor cannot be a 

MEMBER OF IT. 

^o active preacher, no pastor, no presiding elder, no bishop 
can be a member of a local M. E. Society like this at Carroll- 
ton ? Will Methodists think of this? If it is indeed a Scriptural 
Church then Elder Ditzler nor any other Elder, or Bishop of 
the M. E, Church South, is a member of a Scriptural Church ! ! 

But the apostles and apostolic ministers and pastors, and 
elders or bishops were members of the same organization with 
the lay members. James and the apostles were members of 
the church at Jerusalem. Paul and Barnabas at Antioch, and 
so throughout. 

2. The local Society here at Carrollton, cannot receive or 
exclude members. This power is lodged in the traveling min- 
istry alone — see Discipline. It cannot silence or discipline its 
own pastor or preacher for preaching the grossest heresy; for 
though guilty of the grossest immorality — some power outside 
and independent of the Society, alone can do this. But the 
local churches of the '^qw Testament could receive and exclude 
members and discipline its elders. Matt, xviii. 1 Cor. xi, 2. 

62 



994 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The local M. E. Society here cannot select its own minister 
or pastor, or determine his wages, or dismiss him when he 
becomes unprofitable and obnoxious to the members of it. 
Bat the religious teachers, pastors, evangelists and apostle^ 
belonged to the churches and were the propert}^ — the servants 
and not the masters of the chui'ches. They could not only 
call upon them authoritatively to preach to them, but send 
them to preach to others. 

This local M. E. Society has no power to recognize the call 
or ordain one of its members whom it may decide has a call 
to preach the gospel. Men not members of it decide upon 
this matter — and if they see fit, ordain him, and when once 
ordained, his membership is removed from this Society for- 
ever, and his name is enrolled in the Annual Conference, 
which is no church at all, and no Methodist that ever lived or 
wrote, ever claimed it was a church, and he becomes from that 
hour no longer amenable to the local Society for his doc- 
trinal views or his conduct. This local M. E. Society has no 
control of the Gospel, is not nor can be a missionary body- 
can nof in any respect preach the gospel to others by her min- 
isters and her means. 

She has no preacher under its control to send, nor is it 
allowed to send a preacher to any specific field it deemed fit, 
and to control his movements. Methodist preachers all belong 
to the Presiding Elders and Bishops who alone have power to 
silence them from preaching altogether, or send them to mis- 
sion fields or not, as they and the Conference may decide. 

The local Methodist Episcoual Society in this place cannot 
select the Minister it may desire to preach to them next year. 
He is selected and sent by the Bishop with the advice of the 
Presiding Elder, and they must receive him whether they will 
or not. They may protest before hand against an unaccept- 
able minister, and more likely than otherwise he will be the 
ver}^ one who w-ill be sent to teach them subordination. 
Many such cases have occurred, and one but recently in Dal- 
las, Texas. But a Scriptural Church can call and dismiss its 
own ministers. 

The Methodist Episcopal Society here cannot own the house 
of worship or the ground on which it rests, though bought 
with the money of its own members. The property must be 
legally deeded to Conference, and so that the house and lot 
can be exclusively owned and controlled by Conference. The 
Methodist Episcopal Society here, cannot open the doors of 
its house of worship and invite any Minister they please, even 
though a Methodist, to preach to them next Sunday, or any 
other day. The membership have no voice whatever in the 



The Church of Christ. 995 

matter — -the preacher in charge and stewards have absolute 
control over the pulpit, and who may preach or lecture or talk 
in their Meeting House. 

I now notice amain and fundamental objection that applies 
to the Conference, one and all, separately and collectively as 
well as to this local Society. 

lY. The local Methodist Episcopal Church in Carroll- 
ton IS NOT AN Independent body, and therefore lacks a 
Fundamental Characteristic of a Church of Christ: 
JSTow, Eld. Ditzler, changing the verbiage of the proposition, 
admitted what was fatal to the claims of the local Societ}^ 
here, and fatal to the claims of an}^ other body of Methodists 
anywhere as to Conference, being a Christian or Scriptural 
Church. He says it is a '' part of" the proposition, " branch 
of," either expressions admit that the local Society here is not 
independent, as no Conference is — no branch of, or Wheel- 
in-the- Wheel system is — unless it is the General Conference. 
But the Discipline teaches that it takes every local society 
like this in the whole South, thousands of them, with all the 
Conferences, to make one M. E. Church, and it names it " The 
M. E. Church South." You cannot speak properly and sa}' 
the M. E. Churches South. It takes the snm of all its parts 
to make the one body, the one M. E. Church South. No one 
local Society in the South can be considered a church, unless it 
be separate from the General Conference. Such a body is 
not a Scriptural or Evangelical Christian Church, and ought 
not to be called or recognized as such. 

I will now define a Scriptural Church, as regards its polity 
and powers, and these define its character, whether Demo- 
cratic or otherwise, whether legislative or executive only. 

Sec. 1. — Each particular Church is independent of every other body, 
civil or ecclesiastical, and receiving its authority directly from Christ, it is 
accountable to him alone. " 

Sec. 2 — Powers of a Church. — The members of each particular) Church 
are invested with full power to receive those whom they judge worthy 
into their fellowship, administer the discipline of the body, try, censure, 
and expel the unworthy, by a vote of the assembled body, in accordance 
with the teachings of the New Testament. 

Sec. 8. — It is the right and diity of the members of each Church to 
select and elect their own teachers, pastors, and officers, and dismiss them 
when they judge best for the interest of that particular Church ; such 
officers being accountable to the Church for malfeasance in office or un- 
christian conduct, as are the private members. 

Sec 4. — Each particular Church, being independent and sovereign, is 
the highest source of authority, and from its decisions there can be no 
appeal ; it, however, can reconsider its own decisions, whenever the ma- 
jority is in favor of a reconsideration. 

Sec. 5. — It is the right and duty of each Church; as such, to decide and 
declare what it considers the teachings of Christ are respecting Church 



996 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

order, Church ordinances, laws, terms of communion, Christian doctrine 
and duties, and to govern its members accordingly. 

Sec. 6. — These powers, rights, and duties, cannot be delegated, nor con- 
ceded or ahenated with impunity. 

I will present my proofs in support of each : 
1. Throughout the New Testament we nowhere find all the 
churches in one country, or province, or city, spoken of as one 
Church, as the Church of Asia, of Galatia, of Judea, Samaria, 
etc., but invariably Churches. I can only refer you to the 
passages: Acts ix. 31; xv. 41; xvi. 5; xix. 37. Rom. xvi. 4, 
16. 1. Cor. vii. 17; xi. 16; xiv. 33, 34; xvi. 1, 19, 23; xi. 8, 
28 ; xii. 13. Gal. i. 23. 1. Thes. ii. 14. 2. Thes. i. 4. 

There are instances where by a figure of speech called 
synechdoche, where a part is put for the whole, or one for all ; 
the term church is used in place of churches, and in the sense 
of kingdom since it takes all the visible churches of Christ to 
make the Kingdom of Christ, as it takes all the States of this 
Union to make the Republic, and all the Provinces of Great 
Britian to make the Kingdom of Great Britian, 

HiSTORICAX AND OTHER AUTHORITY, 

The Earliest Writers. — Tertullian says, ^^Ubi tres ecclesia est, licet 
laid,'' three are sufficient to form a Church, although they be laymen. 

Dionysius Alexandrinus wrote to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, thus : "Under- 
stand now, O brother, that all the churches throughout the Easty yea^ and 
beyond, are united together, which aforetime were divided and at discord 
anaong themselves. All the governors of the churches everywhere are at 
one," etc. — Eusebius, 1 7, C. 3 {vide passim) . 

Iren^us : Ea quae est in quoque loco ecclesia," that church which is 
in any place. 

Socrates Schoeasttcus : "For this noisome pestilence beginning from 
the churches of Alexandria." "Not only presidents and elders of the 

churches.'' 

^GisiPPUS : When they were gone, it is said they were rulers over — i. 
e., officers in — "churches " — Eudebius, 1, 3, c. 17. 
SozoMENUS : Partly to set in order v/hole churches. 
Iren^UB: "All the churches of Asia." — Easebius, 1, 4, 13. 

EuAGRius : Cyril, bishop of Alexandria, wrote in a letter to John, 
bishop of An tioch : "Christ hath granted peace unto the churches under 
heaven." "Seeing that as well your churches as ours." — Euagrius, lib. 1. c. 6 

Ignatius, Cyprian, and Origeii, when speaking of a particular congrega- 
tion, call it a Churchy as "the Church in Alexandria," "the Church in Smyr- 
na," "the Church in Athens," and in Antioch. The above are the oldest 
and all the writers of note in the first six centuries, and the like phrases 
abound throughout their writings. No such thing as a national church 
or a consohdated hierarchy was known in these centuries, but the seeds 
that afterwards ripened into such an establishment were beginning to be 
sown. "After the idea of the Mosaic priesthood had been adopted in the 
Christian Church, the clergy, as was natural, elevated them^selves far 
above the laity. — Giesler, vol. i. p., 69. 

"What is the Church? It is not the clergy, it is not the councils, still 
less is it the Pope. It is the Christian people, it is the faithful," — D' Au- 
bigne> 



The Church of Christ. 997 

[A. T>. 117-193.] ^^All congregations were independent of one another^ although 
some had a peculiar reputation more than others, on account of many 
circumstances, ex. gr., their apostolic origin, the importance of the city to 
which they belonged, or because they were mother churches." — Giesler, 
ch. iii. § 53. 

[A. D. 100.] ^^AU the churches in those primitive times were independent bodies] 
or none of them were subject to the jurisdiction of any other. It is as 
clear as the noonday, that all Christian churches had equal rights, and 
were, in all respects, on a footing of equality." 

''During a great part of this [the second*] century, all the churches con- 
tinued to be, as at first, independent of each other, or were connected by 
no consociations or confederation ; each church was a kind of little inde- 
pendent republic, governed by its own laws." 

"Although the ancient mode of Church government seemed, in general 
to remain unaltered [A. D. 300-400], yet there was a gradual deflection 
from its rules, and an approximation towards the form of monarchy." 

''This change in the form of ecclesiastical government was followed by 
2i corrupt state of the clergy,^^ — Mosheim, vol. i. pp. 86, 142, 201. See also, 
Nta7}der^ Coleman^ Orchard^ pasiim. 

" The Church is undoubtedly one, and so is the Human Race one, but 
not as a soGiety. It was from the first composed of distinct societies ; 
which were called one, because formed on common principles. It is one 
society, only when considered as to its future existence." 

"The church is one^ then, not as consisting of one society, but because 
the various societies or churches were then modeled^ and ought still to he so^ on 
the same principles, and because they enjoy common privileges.'^ — Kingdom 
of Christy by Archbishop Whately (the highest authority in his day in the 
Church of England. ) 

The learned Dr. Owen fully maintains that in no approved writer for 
two hundred years after Christ, is mention made of any organized, visibly 
professing Church, except a local congregation." — Owen as quoted by 
Crowell [^Church Manual^ p. 36). 

" The usual and common acceptation of the word [ecclesia] is that of a 
particular Church, that is, a society of Christians, meeting together in one 
place under their proper pastors, for the performance of religious worship 
and the exercising of Christian Discipline."— CAance^tor King^ vide Prim- 
itive Church, 

liespectiDg the powers of each local church I submit the 

following : 

Scriptural Proof. 

Mat. xviii. 14-20. Here the Savior gives the minute details with respect 
to an offending member. If the offender cannot be brought to repentance 
by private remonstrance, he is to be arraigned before the whole church — 
his brethren, his peers, and by them his case is tried and decided. If he 
will not submit to the decision of the Church, he is to be expelled. There is 
no higher ecclesiastical court to which he can appeal. He may apply to 
another Church, and that Church being an "independent republic, " can 
receive him, if it is satisfied that the judgment of the excluding Church was 
immature or unjust. Mark well : the Savior did not say, tell it to the 
class leader, or the preacher in charge ; he did not say, report it to the 
committee, or to the Session of ruling elders, did not say, tell it to the clergy 
the Conference, the Presbj^tery, or the Assembly, but to the church — 
the asembled membership of any particular Church, and if the voice of 
that body is not heard, when it is according to his teachings, expel him, 
and he would ratify the act in heaven. 

1. Cor. V. — the whole chapter. There was an offending member in the 
Church at Corinth. Paul exhorted the brethren to exercise the needed 



998 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

discipline ; mark, he did not write to the preacher or the Session to admin- 
ister the discipline, but to the Church — the members of it. See ver. 4 : ''In 
the name of our Lord Jesus Clirist, when ye are come together, [i. e., as a 
Church, evidently], and my Spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus 
Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan," etc. See Mat. xviii. 20, 17, 18 

That the supreme judicial and executive powers are vested in the mem- 
bership, is evident, from ver. 7; "Purge out the old leaven, i. e., expel from 
yom' body and fellow^ship — from the house of God every unworthy mem- 
ber. This was addressed, not to the clergy, or the elders, but to the mem- 
bership of the Church. Such a command could not be addressed to the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, North or South,- nor to the Protestant Epis- 
copal Church of America, nor yet to the Presbyterian Church of Geneva, 
of France, of Scotland, or America. 

Again, Vers. 12, 18, "Do ye not judge them that are within? But them 
that are without God judgeth " 

2 Cor. ii. — Read the whole chapter. The offending man above had been 
tried, and excluded from the Church at Corinth, and had now bitterly and 
truly repented of his sin, as every Christian will ; and Paul knowing this 
to be the case, writes again to the Church — the brethren, the members — 
entreating them to restore the penitent man. He does not command them, 
but affectionately beseeches tliem to restore to the penitent their former 
fellowship, saying, Sufficient to such a man is this punishment, w^hich 
was inflicted of many — the voice of the w^hole, or of the majority of the 
membership. The clergy, or the elders are not so much as once named 
in either of these instructions to the Church. 

Rev., chapters ii. iii. — The instructions and rej)roofs Christ gave to the 
seven churches in Asia, respecting disciphne, doctrine, or duty, were not 
addressed to bishops of Asia, or to rulmg elders of the seven churches, but 
to the membere of each Church, through its ministers, thus recognizing 
them as invested with the supreme judicial and disciplinary powers ; and 
he teaches them also that they are, as churches, directly responsible to 
him, and that he will inflict punishment for disobedience — blot out their 
organizations. 

'The apostle Paul, we have seen, did not presume, upon his own author- 
ity, to expel or receive a member into the Church at Corinth, nor did 
Peter receive the first Gentiles upon his ow^n authority. He first took six 
brethren (enough to constitute two or three churches) with him, and 
when Cornelius and his fiiends professed faith in Christ, and demanded the 
rights and privileges of Christians, ?eter evidently referred them to his 
brethren, saying, "Can any man forbid these i^ersons to be baptized, who 
have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?" 

Touching the right of the members of each Church to have a voice in 
the selection of their teachers and pastors, and the election of their officers, 
we urge two arguments : — 

1. It is the inalienable right of all men to elect then' rulers, or officers 
and teachers; and the New Testament nowhere denies to Christians the 
exercise of it. 

2. The examples of such elections in the New Testament teach, that it 
is both the right and duty of church members to elect thek teachers and 
officers. See Acts i, 15-27. The assembled Church elected, by thek votes, 
an apostle in the place of Judas. 

Acts vi, 1, 6. The whole Church is called together, and, by thek suf- 
frage, they elect seven deacons, who are ordained by the apostles. 

2 Cor. viii, 18, 19, 23. A brother is chosen of the churches, to accom- 
pany Titus and Paul to bear their benefactions, and distribute them 
among the poor saints in Jerusalem. 

See also Acts xv, 1, 2, 4, 12, 22, 23, 30. The brethren at Antioch were 
brought into confusion by the teaching of certain Judaizing teachers, who 
had come down from Judea. They determined to ask for the advice of 
their brethren of the Church in Jerusalem, and of the apostles. They, 



The Church of Christ. 999 

the brethren, chose and sent messengers to go up and consult with them, 
and defray then* expenses. These messengers go up and call the Church 
together, with the apostles and elders. The Church determined, with the 
aid of the apostles, what advice to give, and wrote a letter to the brethren 
at Antioch, and Syria, and Cilicia, &c. The messengers returned to An- 
tioch, and "gathered the multitude together," and submitted the epistle to 
them. 

Kow here are substantial Scriptural and historical facts, and 
I challenge my opponent to meet them in a fair scholarly man 
ner, or frankly to surrender them as he did the Covenants as a 
ground for the support of infant baptism. E"ow with the New 
Testament model before me, I urge a fundamental and fatal 
objection against the M. E. local Society or any local M. E. 
Society being a Scriptural Church — 

Because it cannot decide who may become members of it 

AND RECEIVE ITS ORDINANCES. It CANNOT DISCIPLINE THOSE WHO 
ARE. It cannot exclude one IROM ITS MEMBERSHIP HOWEVER IM- 
MORAL OR WICKED. No ONE OF THEM CAN CHOOSE AND DISMISS ITS 
OWN OFFICERS AND INSTRUCTORS. It CANNOT LICENSE A BROTHER 

TO EXHORT, see Dis. Ch. 3, sec. xiii. It cannot elect a class- 
leader, see ch. 3, sec. xiv. It cannot choose its own stew- 
ards, sec. XV. It cannot choose its own Trustees, ch. 3, sec 
xvi. It cannot select, elect or ordain its own Deacons, see 
ch. 3, sec. vii. It cannot elect its Elders or Bishops, nor is 
any one of all these, amenable to any local M. E. Society 
on earth for urs conduct. It is not like the New Testa- 
ment churches, independent of all other bodies, so as to be 
controlled by none, but each local Society is but a very 

SMALL FRACTIONAL PART OF WHAT REALLY IS KNOWN AS THE MeTH- 

o-DiST Church — the Methodist system in America. 

My next argument in support of the negative of this pro- 
position is — 

YI. The Polity of American Methodism is Hierarchical, 
which is in palpable contradiction to the Teachings of 
Christ, and in contravention of the genius of Christi- 
anity. 

The entire government is in the hands of its pi*iests, for 
nceording to its teachings, its ordinances being " Sacraments," 
its ministers are, bona fide, priests as much as those of tlie 
other Episcopal branches of the great apostacy. 

The late weak attempt cf the General Conference to intro- 
duce lay representation, was more in name than reality. Let 
us examine the Revised Statute Book. 

The first body in which a layman can appear is the Annual 
C(^nference. What proportion of laymen to ministers, none 
can tell. All the traveling preachers in the Presiding Elder's 



1000 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

District, whether ten or twenty, and four laymen — one of 
whom may be a local preacher — and of course is always sure 
to be — three laymen to each Presiding Elder's District, against 
all the preachers, but these lay membei-s can have no voice in 
the trial of their Ministers — the Methodist Mixistrt is ijs 

XO WAY RESPOXSIBLE TO THE LAITY. 

The General Conference is composed of one minister and 
one layman for everv twentv-eio'ht members of each Annual 
Conference — but one-fourth of these laymen may be local 
preachers and therefore icill r/tost certainly be, so that a propor- 
tion of ministers to laymen in the General Conference is as four 
to three. So that it the clergy can upon each question carry 
but a few lav votes, as thev alwavs can, thev can as effectuallv 
as ever carry all their measures. 

Xow the General Conference assumes to itself the supreme 
control of all matters pertaining to Methodism, and if there is 
a church in the system, the General Conference must be that 
bodv, the local Societv certaiiilv is not — for I have demonstra- 
ted two things. 1. 'J hat the local Societies do not possess a sivgle 
characteristic of Scriptural Churches. This will not be success- 
fullv disputed — and 2. That if thev are, then there is not a 
Methodist traveling preacher. Presiding Elder or bishop tb;;t 
belon2:s to a Christian Church of anv sort, unless there are 
two distinct churches in Methodism, — the Annual Confer- 
ence bein^ one — and no one has ever yet claimed that it was 
a church, ivid I icill say here by way of a parenthesis,' icould it 
not be ictll for Elder Ditzler to tell us of what Church he is a 
member — at what p)lace and v:hat is its name.) 

The General Conference claims the rischt to make whatever 
laws or rites it pleases, to change or abolish any or all exist- 
in s: ones, make, chano-e or abolish anv or all reliaious cere- 
monies, and it has the power to withdraw its jurisdiction from 
diWj Society or any number of Societies it pleases, to divide 
or even abolish the whole organization at will, and make an- 
other. This power was decided to belong to the General 
Conference by the Supreme Court of the United States in the 
property case, the sole, sovereign, irresponsible, absolute and 
all-controlling power of the General Conference, was set up 
by the Counsel employed by the Church South, and upon this 
plea the Church South won her share of the property. I will 
present a brief history of that alfair and the arguments era- 
ploj'cd, because the decision of Judge Xelson brings us face 
to face with this fact. The General Conference is all the 
Church or semblance of it there is in connection with Metho- 
dism ; and is it a Church? If so then, what follows? There is 
not a Bishop, Elder or Layman in the United States, a mem- 



The Church of Christ. iooi 

ber of it ! ! For a full history of the whole matter I refer all 
to a book published by the M. E. Church, South, entitled the 
Methodist Church Property Case. 

In 1844, there was but one General Conference in the Uni- 
ted States. At its session in New York city, Bishop Andrew, 
of Georgia, was deposed from his bishopric, for the crime of be- 
ing a master, as Philemon was, and as thousands of the 'New 
Testament Christians were ! Apian of separation, and the 
organization of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, was 
mutually agreed to; and it Avas also agreed that the Church, 
South, should have and hold all the churches, schools, col- 
leges, cemeteries, etc., lying within their specified limits, to- 
gether with an equitable share of the funds of the '' Book Con- 
cern." This is all transparent so far; [as is the fact, that all 
the Methodist meeting-houses, school-houses, colleges, grave- 
yards, in the entire South, and the Book Concern thrown in, 
belong not to the membership who built them, but to the 
bishops and traveling preachers — the traveling clergy ! ! 

But after the adjournment of Conference, the S'orthern 
managers refused to give up the four hundred thousand dol- 
lars falling to the South trom the Book Concern, and the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, through its commission- 
ers, instituted a suit for the rendition of these funds. 

The two "Churches" armed themselves for the conflict, 
securing the most powerful legal talent in the nation. Reverdy 
Johnson and Mr. Lord appeared for the " Church," South, 
and Hon. Pufus Choate, and Wood, for the IN'orthern 
" Church." Now, what had the Church, South, to prove to 
the satisfaction of the court, in order to get a legal claim 
to one dollar of that fund? Simply this: 

" That there never ^^a.s, nor is wottJ, a Methodist Church outside of the 
General Conference, which is composed of bishops and traveling preachers 
only ! and, consequently, the absolute right and control of all the Church 
property is vested in the General Conference alone, as well as all the 
powers of legislation — the people called Methodists having no voice and no 
appeal whatever, as to whether the Methodist Episcopal Church should 
divide into two, or two thousand parts ; or, as to what division it might 
see fit to make of the Church property." 

The counsel for the Church, South, set itself to the work 
of proving this, and the bishops, and commissioners, and lead- 
ing men furnished them with the needful documents, which 
would be admitted as standards on both sides — next of impor- 
tance to the Discipline : among these was " The History of the 
Methodist Disciplined^ 

We give specimens of the pleadings by the counsel for the 
South. I 

Mr. Lo^d — " In vain you look into this Methodist system, prior to 1808, 
for any restrictions on the General Conference of that Church. If that 



I002 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

hoJy had chosen to become Socinians — if it had chosen to adopt the Pres- 
iu'teriau or Baptist forms, either of government or of doctrine, it was in 
its poM'cr to do it. There was no limit. They represented the Church — 
they vjere the Church. The Church dispensed its light from the preachers. 
The laity were not known in the governing body. Matters of doctrine, 
discii^hne, and everything were in the governing body. If that was so 
up to 1808, what was that body after that period ? Itvms the mme, Gen- 
eral Conference.''^ — Properts^ Case, p. 163. 

Hon. li. Johnson— '■'■ This Chm^ch, be it remembered, even unto'the pres- 
ent time, and I Speak it in no offensive sense, as regards its government, 
has been absolutely, since the days of Wesley', an aristocracy. 'Laymen 
have had, and now have no voice in it. If there is a layman within the 
sound of my voice, he knows he has no voice nov:. Heretofore, they have 
been satisfied with the government. They acted upon the saying of Pope — 

" For forms of government let fools contest ; 
That which is best adminisiered, is best." 

Thej perhaps, will be found changing their opinion, when 
they find it is not always "best administered." 

'' Xow, I want to know, if the entire sovereign power of the Church 
was in the ministers, the preachers, what other body on the face of God's 
earth was there in 1808 upon ^vhich to devolve the power of dividmg the 
Church, which must have been in the ministers, than the Conference of 
1808 The ministers made the Church. The ministers, in the govern- 
mental sense, are the Church. The sovereigns are the ministers, and if it be 
a part of the sovereign power, in a body of this description, to divide it- 
self, then that power existed in the Conference of ministers of 1809, or it 
is gone. The admission is, that it cannot be extinguished. It is absolute, 
inherent, and inahenable, as my brother, Mr. Choate, admitted. A body 
unhmited in the authority' to destroy, is responsible only to then- con- 
sciences for the manner in which their authorit^^ is exercised." — Meth. 
Ch. Prop. Case^ p. 3S1. 

Again, speaking of the action of the Conference of 1784 : 
" They admit no constituency. The time is perhaps coming when, in 
all probabihty, they wiU be obhged to admit one for the good of the 
Church. The3' resolve for themselves, and for themselves f to /ve, as the 
possessor.s of aU ecclesiastical power known to the IMethodist Church, to 
carry out the particular organization authorized by John Wesley, with- 
out any other authority than his, and their own conviction that the good 
of the" Church deuianded such a special and particular organization." 
And still further on page 329, Mr. .Johnson continues : " Xo modicum of 
power was left elsewhere. The Church was not to look elsewhere for any 
portion of authorits'. ' ' 

We o:ive the summiiitj; of this evidence in tlie forcible Ian- 
o^uasre of Elder Henderson, in his discassion with Air. Ilamil. 

" Here are two of the fh'st lawyers in the Union, employed hy the com- 
plauxciiits, the commissioners of the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, 
to defend their right to an equitable division of the "Church property," 
before the Circuit Court of the United States, relying whoUy upon the 
evidence which they furnished to tiieir hand, declaring what ? That the 
Conference of 1781, composed of sixty traveling preachers, with ^Messrs. 
Asbury and Coke at their head, in adopting the doctrines and discii'jline 
of that Church, ' admit no constituency' — that 'not one particle of power 
was left elsewhere ; that laymen have had, and now have no voice in it ; 
that ministers compose the ChmTh ; that in a governmental sense they 
are the Church ; that it is absolutely an aristocracy ; that it x:)ossesses un- 
hmited power to create and to destroy ; that it could have become Socini- 
an had it chosen to do so ; and that it is responsible to no tribunal on 
earth, but the consciences of those who wield its authority !' " 



The Church of Christ. 1003 

All this, and much more of like character, was solemnly 
pronounced, as already intimated, by two of the ablest law- 
.yers of the United States, before one of the highest judicial 
functionaries of the country, as an exposition of Methodist 
Episcopacy, and published to the world under the auspices of 
the Methodist Episcopal Church, South and North ! And yet, 
for daring to question its republicanism, Ave are to be de- 
nounced by its patented journals as a " demagogue," a bigot, 
an ignoramus, a legitimate child of the father of lies ! 

After the case had been thoroughly argued by both sides. 
Judge I^Telson delivered the opinion of the court, which sus- 
tained every position taken by the Methodist Episcopal 
Church, South. Here is an extract : 

"2. As fo the power of the General Conference to authorize a separa- 
tion of the Church organization. 

" The Methodist Episcopal Church of the United States was established, 
in its government, doctrine, and discipline, by a General Conference of 
the travehng preachers in this communion, in 1784. Down to that time, 
the Methodist societies in America had been governed by John Wesley, 
the founder of this denomination of Christians, through the agency of his 
assistants. During this year, the entire government was taken into the 
hands of the traveling preachers with his approbation and assent. They 
organized it, established its doctrines and discipline, and appointed the 
several authorities, supermtendents or bishops, ministers, and preachers, 
to administer its polity, and promulgate its doctrines and teachings 
throughout the land. From that time to this, the source and fountain of 
all its temporal power are the traveling preachers in this connection in 
General Conference assembled. The lay members of the Church have 
no part or connection with its govermental organization, and never had. 
The traveling preachers comprise the embodiment of its power, ecclesi- 
astical and temporal ; and, when assembled in General Conference, ac- 
cordmg to the usages and discipline of the Church, represent themselves, 
and have no constituents ; and thus the organization continued until the 
year 1808, when a modification took place." — Appevidix Prop. Case^ pp,10-ll. 

Upon this decision Elder Henderson justly remarks : 
" The decision of the court, then, sustains every position ta^on by the 
counsel. We will state these positions again in still fewer words, con- 
firmed by the extract from the opinion of the court : All the derivtd pow- 
er which the bishops and clergy of the Methodist Episcopal Church ever 
had, came, not from the churches, but from John Wesley. They estab- 
lished its doctrines and discipline, created its officers to administer its 
polity; they are the source and fountain of all its powers; laymen have 
no connection with its governmental organization, and never had ; and 
when assembled in General Conference, according to the usage and dis- 
ciphne of the Church, represent themselves, and have no constituents I 
No bill of exceptions was filed to this decision." 

" The Methodist Episcopal Church, North, yielded to, and the Metho- 
dist Episcopal Church, South, accepted the award ! Both divisions of the 
Church stand committed to this decision, as containing a true and faith- 
ful exposition of the governmental economy of that Church. Why have 
we never heard these lawyers and judges denounced as demagogues and 
bigots, and as ignorant of the subject they were adjudicating ? They aver, 
that so far as government is concerned, (and that is the only subject we 
are discussing, ) the bishops and traveling clergy are, de facto ^ the Church; 
that in its legislative and administrative economy, its lay members are 
unknown ; that it is an aristocracy and has no constituents. Now, if all 



1004 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

this were untrue, can any man suppose for one moment, that the North 
would have yielded its claim to four hundred thousand doUars, and that 
the South would have accepted it ? Is the 'Democratic element' in the 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, (if it ever existed), worth only four- 
hundred thousand dollars? And yet, to secure that pitiful sum, the six 
hundred thousand private members m the Southern division of that 
Church, and, we may add, a larger number in the Northern division, ag- 
gTegatmg a million and a half, or nearly so, of American citizens, are 
recognized by the public records of the countr\', in their ecclesiastical re- 
lations, as below the rank of common citizens — as being no constituents! 
We do not design to introduce degrading comparisons ; but we must be 
permitted to ask, what more humiliating language could be used in re- 
gard to the subjects of the most absolute despotism on earth, than that 
they 'have no constituents ? ' Methodists I local preachers, and private 
members I lovers of God, of truth, of liberty, and of yourxcountry ! 

' If. you have nature in you, bear it not !' " 

From the above revelations made bv the Methodist Episco- 
pal Church, South, through its counsel we Jearn the astound- 
ing fact, That the bishops and traveling preachers have been 
for over seventy years practicing a monstrous fraud upon the 
membership — how many, besides the bishops, have done it 
knowinHv, before tlie revelations of the above-mentioned 
lawsuit, I will not presume to say ; but since the publication 
of that ' Case," all do, or ought to know it. 

\Yhat are Methodist preachers doing, but gathering men 
and women into their " societies," persuading them that the}' 
are joining a Church, when they are joining a local society; 
when so far from it, they are not even joining the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, and the bishops and preachers know it ! 
They are keeping by their teachings, thousands of Christians 
in those societies, who verilv think thev are in the Methodist 
Episcopal Church, when their teachers know they are not in 
it, and never can a'et into it I 

The General Conference alone is the Methodist Episcopal 
Church. Those who belong to societies have no part or con- 
nection with its governmental oro^anization, and never had. 
Says Judge kelson above, " The traveling preachers, when in 
General Conference assembled, constitute the Methodist Epis- 
copal Church, rejrresenting only themselves, and have no constit- 
uents r' 

If we should grant that this is the Methodist Episcopal 
" Church" (which it is not, nor ever was), then there is not a 
Methodist on earth atpresent a member of it, elder or bishop ! 

The truth of our position admits of no discussion. The 
Methodist Episcopal Church, South, proved it in open court, 
and was compelled to establish its truth beyond cavil, in or- 
der to o'ain one dollar of that book fund. The Methodist 
Episcopal Church did establish the fact to the satisfaction of 



The Church of Christ. 1005 

the court, and the Methodist Episcopal Church, North, ad- 
mitted the fact, and gave up the funds without taking an 
appeaL 

In the face of these facts-^ — in the face of the American 
public — 'how long will Methodist bishops and preachers con- 
tinue to deceive and mislead the people? How long will they 
have the hardihood to assert in the face of the decision of 
Judge Nelson, by which they obtained nearly a half million 
dollars of their book fund, that the local societies are churches 
in any sense, or that the laity have any part or connection 
with the General Conference, or that Methodist preachers are 
the representatives of the laity ? The Book Concern^ on the 
cliff, in Nashville, is a standing monument of the falsity of 
such a position; aye, every puff of the engine that drives the 
machinery that prints the papers and books in which these 
statements are made, testifies to their falsehood ! 

I have now discharged my duty to the thousands of de- 
ceived Christians in Methodist* Societies. If they will read 
this, or the ^'Property Case,'^ published by the "Book Con- 
cern," they will know, that even if the Methodist Episcopal 
Church be a Scriptural Church, they are not in it, and have 
no ecclesiastical connection with it. The societies of which 
they are members are not churches^ and they are^ therefore, 
unbaptized ! Think of it, not a bishop or a traveling preach- 
er has his membership in a society w^here the laity are— they 
do not belong to the societies ! 

The reader will find a satisfactory reason in this, why Bap- 
tists should not recognize the ecclesiastical and ministerial 
relations of Methodist preachers by ministerial association, or 
by inviting them to participate in ministerial functions. 

If I have spoken 'plainly on this subject, I have spoken 
kindly ^Qiwdi with the best of motives. — ^Time out. 



ioo6 The Great Carrollton Debate, 



DR. DITZLER'S FIFTH SPEECH. 



Gentlemen Moderatoks: — The Doctor drew the reel-hot 
thunder-bolt, and well may he and his people writhe under it. 
We warned, we admonished, but all to no effect, and we let 
flj the lightning-charged-bolt of historic truth upon him. He 
thinks Orchard's, Robinson's, etc., are admirable histories and 
truthful records. There is not a historian of standing in the 
Baptist church to-da}^ that believes it — not one! There is not 
an important event in church history, tliat they treat of, but 
that they utterly distort the truth, suppress facts, mutilate or 
re-construct, so as to leave a false impression on the reader, 
and seven times out of ten, the narration is positively false, and 
the truth suppressed. They ai^e simply burlesques on history. 
Do they not, for example, put down the Donatists as Baptists ? 
The Novatianists as Baptists? The Manichseans, the Wickliff- 
ites, the Hussites— all as Baptists ? Look at these parties. The 
Donatists, as Wall proves, and Dr. Cramp, Baptist historian, 
acknowledges, practiced infant baptism in the third and fourth 
centuries — -had bishops, priests, confessional, and all the pecu- 
liarities of the Catholic church — yet these are Baptists! The 
founder came out from the Roman church— had his baptism 
thence. What do vou do with that? The Novatianists were 
founded by l!^ovatian whose baptism you remember we had up 
in Prop. i. who was baptized by sprinkling, lying in his bed. 
He never had it any other way, as they admit. Thus a main 
link, is a sprinkled Roman Catholic, who gets mad, and sets 
up a church of his own. He was a Presbyter— yet was now 
ambitious of a bishopric, and being defeated, he set up a 
schism, and held all leading features of Romanism — infant bap- 
tism, three orders of ministers, consolidated church — yet were 
Baptists ! The Manichseans refused baptism of water to all 
persons whatsoever, adults or infants, holding that the devil 
made a large part of the Bible, made man, water, etc., and so 
this party rejected baptism wholly. Yet such men as Orchard 
tell us they refused to baptize infants, which is utterly false, 
for as they would not baptize at all, it is false to say they refused 
it to infants. As for Wickhffe,Huss and Jerome of Prague, 
they all lived and died Cathojics— having held high and dis- 
tinguished positions in that church. As Rome was always 
aggressing against the rights of the people, the priests over 



The Church of Christ. 1007 

p6ot)le^ the bishops over the priests, the archbishops over the 
bishops, and the Pope over all these, eternal conflict raged 
through all these centuries. As each attempt to abridge the 
rights of the other order was made, it was for long years 
resisted with more or less fury and zeal. 

I^ot till 1215 was the Bible publicly suppressed. ]N'ot till 
the thirteenth century was the attempt made with success to 
rob the people of the cup in the sacrament. In some remote 
parts these encroachments against the clergy and laity were 
stubbornly resisted even to mobs and skirmishes, as was the 
case in Bohemia in the days of Huss. ]^ow, because these 
Catholics resisted the never-endina: encroachments on their 
long-enjoyed rights in these things, these so-called histo- 
rians. Orchard, etc., set them down as Baptists, and links in 
their chain of succession ! ! These parties baptized all their 
infants, used affusion as well as dipping, had Archbishops, 
Cardinals, confessional — altogether Roman Catholics. Doctor, 
Graves cannot recognize Presbyterians, Disciples, Methodists, 
Episcopalians, as churches, but he can these parties! "Con- 
sistency, thou art a jewel." 

Let us review all the points now he has sought to make. 
As to our Discipline, the Pitual has been explained, and needs 
not repetition. His construction is on a par with most of the 
conclusions he draws. 

He fears there will be tens of thousands of "bran new 
churches," by our course. Well, God grant that there may 
be! Is not every new congregation a new church? Is not 
every new organization among you, a new church ? It is 
alarming then, for these to increase, is it? Oh, but he means 
new denominations. Well, if they all do as much good as we 
did, as all the standard Baptist historians — Jeter, Benedict, 
Cramp, Backus, show we did, let them multiply. 

He attempts to argue now, government implies form — 
laws, forms to execute them. He says Jesus Christ did insti- 
tute such a specific form — the first was a mother church and 
model of all the rest. Well, that is progress. 

He formerly told us the church was first organized on the 
Mount — Matt, v, vi, viii, where the sermon was delivered. 
Then, 

1. It was composed exclusively of preachers, with (1) no 
lay members, (2) no women, (3) no officer. 

2. It was established without any baptism, or naming of the 
subject. 

3. It had no baptism, no Lord's Supper, as yet, no authority 
to baptize, nor to preach. No commission to them to preach 
was given till some time after this, Matt. x» 



ioo8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

I'Tow where was there a model in this for a church, especially 
in the only sense you say there can be a church? Where 
now the essentials— :the diferentia he spoke of formerly? 
Alas I it gets to be worse and worse. 

He now comes out and says I define the invisible, spiritual 
church. Why 5 he denied in a former proposition^that on 
Infant Baptism— that there was such a thing. He sees now 
clearly that there is such an existence. 

I not only define the one — I define both— have done it 
repeatedly. 

He waxes desperate and says " Kot a Baptist minister ever 
had anything to do with Roger Williams. If that is soj then 
Bancroft, Benedict, Backus, Cramp, — the three last the three 
standard Baptist Historians of America, all are guilty of false- 
hood most palpable. The leading Baptist ministers of those 
times got their baptism from him, Olney directly, Wickenden, 
etc., Vaughn indirectly by getting it in line through Olney. 
He said Butler's Analogy did more to wipe out infidelity than 
Wesley s's work ! Then, 

1. Why does it not do so now ? 

2. If Analogy is such a weapon, why did you so disparage 
it when accusing me of using arguments founded on analogy? 

3. Every historian knows it is utterly untrue and shows it ? 

4. The great mass of people were reached at once by Wes- 
ley, whereas the Analogy can onl}- be understood by the edu- 
cated. Pitiable, indeed, is this subterfuge. The masses knew 
about as much about the Analogy as they did of the Vedas. 

He wants to know where Bishop Marvin's and my member- 
ship exists ? 

1. Where was PanTs, Peter's, Silas' ? 

2. Where the Seventy's membership ? 

3. Where is the membership of their missionaries when in 
transit to their distant fields ? 

i^ow when he answers correctly any one of tbese questions 
he will have answered his own. We have shown repeatedly, 
that the membership of all is in the family of God, and mem- 
bership there entitles to fellowship with brethren, and that- 
fellowship and association was a visible representation of the 
church, and through these organized bodies the work of the 
church was carried on, and visible contact with it recognized. 
This explains his next question — Where was the church till 
1739? Did I not see daily around me the blinding power of 
prejudice and passion, I could hardly realize that such a ques- 
sion was put to us. How often must we explain that all the 
saved constitute God's Church. That any part of these may 
organize themselves together and they form a visible, tangible 



The Church of Christ. 



1009 



church or body of churches. They may be called Methodists 
or Presbyterians — it does not affect the fact. Hence God has 
always had a Church — always. Let me now ask, Where was 
the church up to 1607-8 when the first Baptist church that 
ever was on earth, was established — organized ? Where had 
the church been all that time ? 

He tells us what Mosheim tells us about Anabaptists being 
lost in the depths of antiquity, and that is proof they run to 
the Apostolic day and are the same as Baptists ! Mosheim 
shows that they are not Baptists. Giesler, Bingham, Hase, 
Keander, all show it perfectl}'. 

]^ow let me explain to j^ou what these historians mean by 
Anabaptists in the earlier ages — third, fourth and fifth centuries. 
In the fierce persecutions of the third century many people 
gave up their Bibles at the command of the tyrant king to be 
burned. They were called Traditores, those who delivered 
up their bibles. -After the persecution had passed, many came 
forward and desired to be admitted to communion. The 
church held them off — deuianded penitence and proof of refor- 
mation or deep contrition, then after a time admitted them. 
This so incensed some ministers — fanatics — that they declared 
that one who had fallen never could be restored, and that they 
ought not to allow these la'psi or fallen ones to be restored to 
the church. A split ensued. One party went off, and de- 
nounced the other majority party as fallen and no church. 
Hence being no church, she could not administer its ordi- 
nances. Hence they rebaptized all who came to them from 
the Catholic church. I^ow that is the sole cause of their rise 
— the oole ground of difference, and Dr. Graves will not, dare 
not den}^ it, for we have the full facts, details, etc., in all the 
histories of the church, and the original histories and litera- 
ture covering those times. ]N"ow that is what constituted 
the party Anabaptists then. Other troubles later caused others 
to be so called. Infant baptism was not involved. Wall 
shows that they baptized infants as regularly as the other wing 
of the church, had the same orders, confessional, and all that 
belonged to liome. Moreover, they came out from Rome — 
had their baptism thence and all their credentials These are 
the links that chain you to the Apostolic times as Baptists ! ! 

As the Doctor strikes in the dark, yet keeps on at it in the 
vain hope that out of somucli beating the air he will hit some- 
body, he levels a blow at our revivals. Well, if he wants this 
audience to become uiimana<z'eable — to become uproarious, 
let him get me to descril)ing BapMst revivals. But we hope 
a l)etter judgment will prevail. At Hardin, the second town 
from here west on the R. R., the past fall they had a revival 

63 ■ 



loio The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and fully half, if I was correctly informed there a few clavs 
before this debate, are backslidden already. They picked up 
movers and passing stragglers and immersed them. They 
immersed -'little children,'^ ouly seven and eight to nine 
years old. 

Two parties — known to leading men in this house now, 
joined the Baptists, afkd were immersed in "a hope" they had 
indulged eighteen (18) years before, though wicked since that 
time ! 

In Texas, while there last winter, in Denton county, they, 
responsible men, told me of a Baptist preacher who com- 
mitted a crime unnamable — and as^ainst one entrusted to his 
protection and education as a brother-in-law, and then he shot 
an uncle of the ruined party dead who sought to revenge the 
outrage, yet what do Baptists do? lN"ow, such an act might 
occur in any church, bad men get into all churches. But the 
point is, your Congregationalism offers no protection against 
scoundrels. It is the government of unchecked majorities 
unlimited by laws, balances, etc. It is mobocracy. A neigh- 
boring Baptist church, fully posted on this infamous wretch, 
called him as their pastor! !I Look at Plymouth church, and 
look how we get at offenders? We have the fine balance of 
law and order, the rights of minorities carefully secured. In 
your church minorities have no security. A popular preacher 
or a few wealthy members may secure verdicts, and there is no 
established standard, no system of laws defining juries, moder- 
ators, rights and duties, and securing the administration of 
justice. The purity of the church and ministry must be se- 
cured. 

Our church government has bishops, the ISTew" Testament 
had them. They were "overseers," then, Acts xx, 27-29, in 
the flock, the church, and they^ are so with us. The whole 
church in its representative character then made all rules, 
laws, regulations of a general character, as we abundantly^ 
proved, see Acts i, viii, 9-20; xi, 1-17; xv, 1-21, so we do 
now\ Each individal congregation had the application of 
law, management of its officers. So they have among us now. 
We are completely apostolic. 

But in vain have I called for him to examine the history of 
church action and order in the Gospel or the Acts of the 
Apostles. J^o, no; he cannot be induced even to tell us of 
what church Philip made the Eunuch a member when he 
baptized him. Baptist church government has no show in 
this book, the Bible. It can do far better out in the fog of 
the dark ages, about ])onatists, Petrobrussians, Lollards, 



The Church of Christ. ioii 

Hussites, and Ilittites, Daiiites, and all other Ites, where the 
people ai-e totally unable to trace up and examine the founda- 
tion of such claims, anything is better than the Bible. 

Why, we have done all we could, we proposed to him in a 
letter to restrict this whole question to the Scriptures, as the 
wording of the proposition clearly demanded this, and it was 
their wordino;. But no, he utterly refused. And what has 
he relied on to meet us here? He reads from a speech made, 
or article written b}^ Deems, when in' a great fog and muddle, 
and seriously contemplating leaving us — from oneby Bascom, 
when about to sever his connection with us — this he admits, 
and one from Jessee Lee, and one purporting to be by Dog- 
gett on what constitutes the church. As to the last, it is not 
in evidence that Bishop Doggett wrote the article. Because 
he was editor is far from being proof of that. If he did write 
it, and Dr. Graves has reported him faithfully, it is unscrip- 
tural, unmethodistic, and anti-Wesle^'an. So we let it pass. 
As to the rest, it is unworthv of a debater to throw out a 
drag-net and haul in all the vituperation and abuse of men 
who were, he tells us, disappointed, chagrined, mortified, 
mad — the passionate expressions of such hours, and intro- 
duc^.e them as witnesses. AH civil courts, loving justice, rule 
out such testimony directly or indirectly. Is such fit to be 
introduced as testimony in the courts of God ? 

He tells us that no sprinkled man is a Baptist. Then why 
claim Novatian, Ford, as Waller, and Orchard — these allpub- 
lished and endorsed by Dr. Graves — and Wickliffites, and 
Hussites, and Donatists — all of whom practiced aftiision and 
dipping both, while all Baptist writers on immersion tell us 
of the sprinkling of Novatian. 

He tells us a brother is here waitinsfand anxious to meet 
me in debate on these historic points. We reply. Dr. Graves 
has published Orchard and Waller's "Baptists not Protest- 
ants." He is before the country endorsed as no other Baptist 
is, and we challenge him to meet us at Liberty, Mo., and there 
Ave can test Orchard fully. Let him defend him if he can. 

Meanwhile Dr. Graves assumes that they are the embodi- 
ment of, and Christianity itself! That is very modest. We 
would whisper to him from Burns — 

"O ye who are sae gude yoursel, 
Sae pious and sae holy, 
You've nought to do but mat-k and tell 
Your neighbors' faults and folly." 

"I bless and praise thy matchless m. ,':. , 

When thousands thou hast left in night, 
^riiat I am here before thy sight 
For gifts and grace, 



TOI2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

A burning and a shinin' light 
To a' tliis i)lace." 

But, under which king ? Which is tlie real Baptist church? 
As there is but the one true church, which is it ? There are 
at least nine litigants in the ecclesiastical court here — each puts 
in its claim to be the Baptist church. Wiio is oldest ? The 
General Baptists are. Whence came tlie next in order, the 
Particular Baptists ? They split ofi' from the General. So 
Benedict, Backus, Cramp tell us, and give dates and names 
and places. After this they split from age to age. Now the 
Particular, or Calvinistic wing, got their baptism from thfi 
Genei'al Baptists. The Hard-shells, the Primitives, etc., all 
claim that the Baptist body re[)resente<l by Dr. Graves split 
oft' from them — forsook the confession of 1646, which was 
iron-clad in Calvinism. The facts of faith coniirm this as the 
correct view. Yet they assume to be the ]>aptist church. 

All minor matters may be passed in silence. We have now 
met all his points and turned them agaitist him. What can 
he do? We have proved all our points and commit tliuni to 
the record. — lime out. 



The Church of Christ. - 1013 

DR. GRAVES' FIFTH REPLY. 
Replication. 

Mr. President: — Professedly I am replying, actually — I am 
feading on this as I did on his former affirmative. He exhaus- 
ted his resources in his first speech, as is his wont, and for 
the rest of time rehashes what he has said and fills up his time 
with irrelevant matter, a discussion abounding in thp perver- 
sion of Baptist history. Well, I ofifer this excuse for him, he 
does the best he can — if he had any valid arguments with 
which to support his affirmative, he would not be slow in 
bringing them forward and urging them with an unwearied 
persistence and audacity, but he offers none because he has 
none. 

Only a few words before I proceed with my arguments on 
refutation. The question before us, Is not whether there has 
been an unbroken succ'ession of Baptist Churches from those 
planted by the apostles until this day, but does the local M. E. 
Society in this place possess the Scriptural characteristics of a Chris- 
tian Church? This is the question Eld. Diztler agreed upon 
his Christian honor to discuss with me upon this day, and 
this is the very question he persistently refuses to discuss. 
He refuses to give a definition of a visible church — one that 
is on this earth — and has organization, a living membership 
and ordinances. He never has in connection with this ques- 
tion, nor throughout this debate. I have asked him — how many 
times ? — if he wuU endorse the definition found in the xiii Arti- 
cle of this Discipline, which he has sworn on bended knee, 
before his superior officers to hold and teach, and he has not 
done it. I use glasses, but I am not deaf. Have yon heard 
him, Mr. President ? Have you heard him Gentlemen Moder- 
ators? Has anv man or w^oman in this audience? Let that 
one hold up his hand. I pause for the signal. No one has 

HEARD YOU ENDORSE THE DEFINITION OP YOUR DISCIPLINE and 

no one will hear you do so. Mark my words. E^or will you 
attempt to give a Scriptural definition of a Christian Church. 
Of the Church Universal and Church Invisible I know noth- 
ing, nor does Eld. Ditzl-er. They are the creatures of the 
imagination only, purely ideal conceptions — with which we have 
nothing to do. They were never ''set up" either in Eden or 
in Abraham's family, in the wilderness nor "in the days of 
the Kings" of the Fourth Universal Earthly Empire, the Roman 
Csesars. See Dan,, ii, 4L Christ never " built" nor rebuilt or 



1 014 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

established either. The invisible church had never "fallen 
down" as the tabernacle of David did, to be set up again, which 
he says was spoken of the Church of God, and then tells us 
that the Church of God is the Church Invisible — and may exist 
intact though eveiy Christian be cut off this earth! Need I 
waste my time exposing such crudities, such contradictions 
and absurdities? I did not devote one moment in noticing 
his fourth speech. I could not dignifv it with a notice. I 
could not by a notice seem to imply that it belonged to this 
discussion — it is a matter he has prepared for another discus- 
sion upon the church question — but lest my silence should be 
misconstrued, I will say here, there was not a solitary position 
in it all, that I cannot easilj- refute, that seemed to militate 
against the claims of Baptists to a succession of churches — or 
in the language of eminent Pedobaptist historians, Drs.Ypeig 
and Durmont — that Baptists may be considered the only relig- 
ious community that has stood since the days of the Apostles 
and has preserved pure the doctrines of the Gospel through 
all ages. 

I say again the question is not what Baptists, past or present 
have believed or do believe, or whether an unbroken succession 
of Bantist churches can be clearlv proven ; there have been 
some who think so and sorae who think otherwise. But 
what has that matter to do with this question before us, which 
reads, "The M. E, Society at Carrollton^ Mo." — that body that 
worships across the street, the "pre^'cher in charge" of which 
is before me, possesses the scriptural characteristics of a church. 
The question is not what Bunyan, of England, or Jeter, of 
Richmond, or other onen communionists, and so-called liberal 
oaptists think upon the succession, for men less acquainted with 
historical matters' could scarcelv be found amono' the best 
inforn:ied of our ministers, but the question is touching the 
characteristics of this M. E. Society in this town. It is not 
whether John the Baptist gathered and constituted a church 
himself, which is \\\viXt Bunyan denied, and what no Baptist 
on earth ever affirmed, but did not John Wesley originate, and 
devise, and set up without consulting the Divine model, this 
local M. E. Society in this place, and is it patterned after the 
^S"ew Testament model? 

Xow I will ask my opponent to answer two questions when 
lie gets up, questions fundamental and vital to the settlement 
of these questions. 

I. AYlLL HE ENDORSE AND AGREE TO SETTEE THIS QUESTION BY 
THE DEFINITION OF ChTIRCH GIVEN IN AhT. XLII, AND THE 
POWERS OF EACIP PARTICULAR ChURCH GIVEN IN- ArT. XII, OF 



The Church of Christ. 10x5 

HIS Discipline to which T have so oftex called his at- 
tention? 

II. Will he tell me to what Church he belongs^Presid- 
iNG Elder or any Bishop of the M. E. Church, and if it 

tS TO A LOCAL SOCIETY LIKE THIS IN CakROLLTON ? 

Tlie aiisvvei' of these questions invariably and conclusively 
settle the one before us, i. e., if Elder Ditzler claims that he 
or an}' Presiding Elder or Methodist member in this house 
or the Bishops of the M. E. Church, do indeed belong to any 
organization that is claimed, by any one, to possess the scrip- 
tural characteristics of a Christian Church. I am determined 
that this last question shall be answered, or tlie fact that it is 
not and cannot be, shall be known throughout the land. I 
will advise Elder Ditzler that he can never conquer a peace 
nor stop the months of Baptists, if he can the Disciples, until 
.he answers this question. I know that he belongs to an An- 
nual Conference, which I know, all Methodists know, and all 
men should know, is not a Christian Church, or " braneh of the 
same." But whether he professes to hold actual membership 
in any other organization, I want him to say, and answer loud 
enough for all to hear, and if he cannot do it, why, then, 
what? He can abuse and misrepresent the Baptist denomi- 
nation, and furiously assail those men, whether historians or 
editors, authors or writers, who have rendered their memories 
justly illustrious and dear to every Baptist heart, by boldly and 
faithfully defending Baptist principles and vindicating their 
history from obscurity and reproach, but he confesses that he 
has no church membership, nor any other Methodist minister. 

While waiting upon him for his arguments I will present 
you with my own. 

ARGUMENT CONTINUED. 

Though should we grant that Episcopacy, as recognized by 
the Anglican Church is Scriptural, ?/;A«c7i Weslei/ boldli/ declsires 
it is not^ yet Methodist Episcopacy — the Avheel-within-wheel 
Episcopacy — is so utterly different from it, certainly cannot be 
Scriptural, for nothing like it was ever found in the Scrip- 
tures. It was evidently framed for an ignorant membership, 
as the Episcopal Prayer book w^as for an ignorant, prayerless 
priesthood, by men who could write prayers for those who 
could not pray. Says Dr. Deems, when editor of the /Sow/A^^rn 
Pulpit, and his article was copied into the Nashville Advocate: 

"If we may apply the figure to Methodism, we can very readily see 
that a government suited to the sooty colliers of England, servants, and 
the uncultivated, who had grown up amid all the peculiarities of an aris- 
tocratic country, might hardly be fit for a Church among whose laymen 
are presidents and professors in colleges,judges of suxDreme courts, senators. 



Id 6 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

and men lilDeralized byxDrofessional learning and |X)lite associations, Tli*^ 
fact is, John "Wesly formed Societies : om^s is a Church. John Wesle\- 
did not make government a special study : but being a strong man and 
a violent Tory, and hnding a sect gathering around him to be governed, 
he seized the reins— he became autocrat ; and through his helpers, he 
governed most ably. It was very natural that when our Cbuj'ch was 
formed, it should be built somewhat after the model of the 'societies' of 
Wesley. Is it not too exact a cop)y, and may it not neetl mencUng? 
Even if Wesley had made government a study, and was by nature supe- 
rior to the mass he controlled, there are laymen in oui Church in this day^ 
as great natively as AVesley, who have paid mticli more attention to the 
science of government. This is said with great deference and much ven- 
eration for manv things in the character of John TVeslev. He vv'us before 
his times; ours before him." 

Joseph Walker, of DaUas county, Ala., wrote this in 1S2'3 : — 
" I was personally acquainted with Bishop Asbmy. I have heard him 
converse with the Eev. Hope Hulb who was a friend to reform, and I 
easily coUected the information that our Church government was framed 
chiefly by subjects of Great Britain. Of course I never wondered much 
that such men should have shaped theh code, and made then ecclesias- 
tical laws, according to their own model. But when I consider that nearly 
all om' present preachers are Americans ; when I consider how exceUent 
and powerful is the reijublican siDirit which prevails in these United 
States, and how equal the civil laws under which we live : when I see 
how carefully our civil and religious liberties are secured ta the people of 
every i^ossible variets' of denomination, I am compeUed to ask the ques- 
tion. Is not the form of our Church government, and the manner in which 
it is administered, an open iusult to the Constitution of the United States ? 
It surely is : and were it fully investigated and exposed to pubhc ^dew. 
such a despotic institution would make a bad apj)eai'ance before the obser- 
vation of a religious republic. 

But I have said that a Hierarchical Government like that 
of Methodism contradicts the teachings e)f Christ and contra- 
A'enes the g;eniii5 of Christianity. It rejects the only headship 
of Christ in an.d over his church. Paul tells us bv the Holv 
Spirit that Christ is head over all things to his church, which 
is his body. Eph. i. 

This principle explicitly establishes the theocratic character 
of the CJiristian Church, and that in its visible operations it is 
an executive body only, never a legislative one. It has na 
power to make, change, or abolish the least law for the observ- 
ance of its members. It can add no rite, change no rite, abol- 
isli no rite or ceremony. The commandments of men, and 
the tradition of its Elders have no lawful place within it. 
Should any local cliurch so tar depart as to practice one rite. 
one ordinance, one law or doctrine enacted by men, its worship 
would be vain, in the estimation of Christ, and it would forfeit 
its. evangelical character. He himself hath said, "In vain do 
they worship me, who teach for doctrines the commandments 
of men." and he charges those who do this with making the 
law of God of none effect. 

"Ye do make the law of G-od of none effect bv vour traditions." 

Now I have shown that the sprinkling cerem_ouy, and infant 



The Church of Christ. loiy 

baptism and unregenerate membership, practised by the local 
M. E. Society here, are one and all traditions of men. Eld. Ditz- 
ler nor any other man has ever found one syllable, precept or 
example in the Bible to warrant them, and therefore, these 
work a forfeiture of all its claims upon Scripture for warrant. 
But who and where is the sole head of this little Society 
here ? It is not independent of outside control, as I have 
shown. It cannot own or control the house it worships in 
though bought with its money. It cannot receive, nor disci- 
pline, nor exclude its own members, or decide whom it can 
fellowship. It cannot call or dismiss its own ministers, nor 
are those who preach for it in any way amenable to it for their 
doctrines or their conduct. It cannot determine what the 
word of God teaches for doctrines. It cannot take the I^ew 
Testament alone for its Ritual, its Confession of Faith and its 
Book of Discipline, but it is shut up to one book for all these, 
and that not the Kew Testament but a Discipline made by 
fallible men, human law-makers, the General Conference And 
through this law book the claim, the right to change save in one 
or two particulars and the}- do change every four years, and have 
already changed it twenty-five different times since 1784. So 
that what was once a sin that would have excluded a member, 
is now no longer a sin, and vice versa! ! 

One thino^ is clear as noon-dav, that Christ is not head over 

CD •' ^ 

all things to the little local M. E. Society in Carrollton, nor to 
the M. E. organization of Vmerica, but the Conference is — 
the General Conference is head over all things to the local 
M. E. Societies throughout the South — they are not therefore 
the Churches of Christ, nor can they be said to be the body 
or a part of the body, for Christ is the supreme and only 
head of Ms body, which is his church. 

I^or is Christ head over all things to the General Confer- 
ence. It does not claim that it must govern itself solely by 
the laws, and observe the rites laid down in the ]^ew Testa- 
ment, but it claims to itself the iniquitous and papal prero2a- 
tives of Anti-Christ, the man of sin, to make and to change 
laws, to institute and abolish rites and ceremonies for its 
members. 

Mr. President, the enormity of the sin of adding to and 
taking from what Christ has commanded — of the assumption 
of the right in a body calling itself a Church of Christ, has 
but faintly impressed the minds of professedly religious men. 
Even Calvin could calralj' endorse tliis most heinous sin of 
the mother of all the abominations of the earth — when he says, 
'' the Church has reserved to liersolf the right preserving the 



iot8 The Great Carrollton D::eate. 

substance, to have rites sop.^e^vhat diffoi-cnt,*" etc., and in his 
own language respecting the change of the act from immer- 
sion to sprinkling in cold countries, ^'-sed id pro regionum 
diversitate ecclesiis librimi esse debet," hut this privilege ought 
to be granted to the churches on account of the difference of 
countries. Inst. Lib. iv. chap. xv. 19. 

This assumed right of a church or its rulers to change the 
rites that Christ has institnted and commanded, is the veri/ 
essence of Popery. Grant it in one thing, however trivial, and 
jou establish a priiiciple that embraces all things. The right 
to change the least thing involves the rio^ht to change all — to 
ABOLISH ALL, and institute other and different things for them. 
The right to add one thing, however sm.all, concedes the right 
to add all things that the Romish Apostacj has added to cor- 
rupt and destroy the Church. This right which is the marked 
characteristic of Antichrist, the Methodist Episcopal Society 
or General Conference openly claims to itself in the very ar- 
ticles of its religion, and has constantly exercised it, and by 
so doing, forfeited QVQvy claim to be considered a Scriptural 
Church. The whole Book of Discipline is a Statute Book, 
chano'ed everv four vears since 1784, and vet with all its 
chano'es bindins: upon everv member of this Societv here in 
Carrollton, and unless implicit obedience is rendered, expul- 
sion is ordered and must follow. If its teachings are not 
assented to by the most pious Christians in the Society here, 
if he presumes to speak against them he is to be excluded 
from the Supper and from the Society. The very things to 
which he conscientiously objects this year, and for which he 
is excluded, may next year be struck out of the Discipline like 
the Popish confession^il — the Band meetings have been since 
the Iron Wheel was written, the class meeting test, and forty 
other thino^s, vet he was cast out of Christ's Church if indeed 
the local Methodist Episcopal Society here be a church, not 
for disobeying Christ, his Savior — no, he has been in all 
things a dutiful child to Him, and kept all His commandments, 
but because he has not obeyed men and their commandments 
and traditions ! 

To prove to you that I am correct, I will take the law for 
Class-meeting now abolished. In every Discipline before a 
book was w^ritten (1855) styled the Great Iron Wheel, under 
chap, v, § 3, you v\ull find a law for excluding every one- who 
refused to attend Class-meeting and submit to a personal ex- 
amination b}' a leader in whom perhaps the member had no 
confidence; and it was provided that the leader should give 
him a certificate that he was otherwise blameless as a Chris- 
tian. Xow was the Class-meeting a divine institution ? It 



The Church of Christ. 1019 

originated w th one Capt. Fo}^ for the purpose of collecting 

quarterage. Mr. In skip says : 

" Class-meetings are peculiar to Methodism. Other churches have 
occasioned inquiry, conference, or experience meetings. But class-meet- 
ings are an essential part of our >system. It is not claimed that 
this institution is of divine origin. So soon as we become willing to dis- 
pense with this feature of our system, our decline and downfall will cer- 
tainly and rapidly follow. This is one of the ancient landmarks, and it 
would be almost sacrilegious to remove or deface it." — Methodism, by 
Inskip, pp. 192-193. 

Dr. N. Bond, when discussing with the Reformers, says : 

" But if the Reformers insist upon changing the rule which makes it 
obligatory upon our members to meet in class, because there is no positive 
scriptural command for it, they must also give up infant eaptism, 
and the administration of the communion to females, for there is no 

SUCH COMMANDMENT FOR EITHER THF] ONE OR THE OTHER." — Econo- 
my of Methodism, p. 52. 

J^ow this law was abolished after the appearance of the 

book I have mentioned and it is no longer a sin to " inveio;h 

CD d!' 

against it." There was a day since 1856, that it was 
a sin worthy of expulsion to inveigh against and violate the 
Class-meeting law, and before the sun went down it was no 
sin ! Now I sav to have obeyed that law was always to obey 
raeji, not Christ, and I stand here and say that to obej- any 
law or observe any I'ite in this Discipline not found in the 
I^ew Testament, is to obey men, and I further affirm that to 
obey the General Conference in anything and to take its 
Statute Book instead of, or alono^ with tlie only law book and 
Discipline that Christ has given his Church, is to reject Christ 
as supreme and only lawgiver and to obey men, and I re- 
member here the words of the Ploly Spirit, '' know ye not, 
that to whom ye yield yourselves servants to obey, his ser- 
vants {douloi slaves) ye are whom ye obey ?" 

Elder Ditzler has twice on bended knee swoi'n before God 
and men that he would OBEY his CHIEF ministers to whom 
he admitted the charo:e and government over liim was com- 
mitted, once when he was made a Deacon and again when he 
was made an Elder — and. those oaths are this day on his soul, 
and the Holy Spirit says he is the slave of men, Now that 
obedience was not sworn in the Church of Christ, nor to any 
one that was or is today a member of a Gospel or Christian 
Church, if the M. E. Society here in CarroUton is indeed a 
Scriptural Church, -or those chief iiiinisters were not, and are 
not members of this Socuety here nor a Society like this au}^- 
where ! But T object tuither — 

That the Hierarchical or Episcopal feature of — not the local 
M. E. Society in CarroUton for it is possessed of no govern- 
ment iuherently, the power that controls it is in the wheel 



1020 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

above it. iind bevoiui its control — the Metliodist system which 
is called " Church' as uiiscriptural and in contravention of 
the teachings of Christ. 

Because it destroys the parity oe the christiax 3iixis- 

TRY, ESTABLISHIXG AS IT DOES THREE ORDERS OE THE MIXISTRY, 

SUPERIOR AXD IXEERIOR HATIXG DIEFEREXT POWERS. AXD THE 

SUPERIOR HAVIXG THE CHARGE OVER THE IXEERIOR. 

The Xew Testament knows iiud vrarrauts no such orders. 
From it we learn : 

Omcers and their rank and duties. — There are but two oflScers in the 
Church of Christ — jDastors (elders or bishops), and deacons. 

Pastors or bishops are of the same order or rank, and exercise equal 
authority. It is their office to teach, aud tal:e the oA'ersight of the Church 
in all things pertaining to doctrine and disciplme, according to the 
iuspu'ed word. 

Thev must l3e men irreproachable in their private and public relations 
in hfe. 

It is the duty of the deacons, of whom there may be seven, to take 
charge of all the temporahties of the Church. 

In his works, vol. vii. p. 311, he says: " Lord King's account of the 
Primitive Church convinced me many years ago, that bishops and pres- 
byters are the same: oedek, and consequently have the same right to 
ordain." This is a full and fi'ank confession, and if his convictions are 
correct, the claims of a Methodist or EpiscoiDal bishop are unscriptural and 
most aiTogant I Did ]Mr. Wesley ordain an EpiscoiDal bishoj), with this 
conviction? 

See also his Xotes on the Gospel, written at the close of his life : 

Acts i. 20, And his " bishopric," he renders apostleship. In Phihp- 
l^ians i. 1. In his notes on bishops, he says, " The word bishops here in- 
cludes all the presbyters at Philipi, as well as the ruling presbyters ; the 
names bishoj) and presb^mer. or elder, being promiscuously used in the 
tirst ages ! I Did ]NIj\ AYesley. in the face of this, solemnly ordain Mr. 
Coke an Episcopal bishop, an order of ministry he believed neither found 
in, nor warranted by, God's word ? 

'• But that it .Episcopacy) is prescribed in scripture, I do not beheve. 
This Opinion, which I once zealously espoused, I have been ashamed of ever 
since' I read Bishoi^ Stillingtleet's ' Irenicon.' I think he has unanswer- 
ably proved that ' neither Christ nor his apostles prescribe any particular 
form of CTiurch government ; and that the plea of divine right for dioce- 
san Episcopacy was never heard of in the primitive Chm'ch.' " — Wesley's 
Works, vol. 7." 

When Mr. Wesley learned that ^Ir. Asbnry and Coke had 
established an Episcopal form of ^'overnment in the United 
States, he addressed .Mr. A. the following very pointed letter. 
(See Wesley's Works, vol. vii. pao-e 187, Letter to Ashurv"!: 

"LoxDOX, Sept. 20th, 1788. 
" There is, indeed, a wide difference between the relation wherein you 
stand to the Americans, and the relation Avherein I stand to all the Metho- 
dists. You are the elder brotlier of tlie American INIerhodists ; I am, un- 
der Grod, the father of the whole family. AVill Methodists deny that 
John Wesley was their father, aud are tliey not.tlien his children and 
followers ?) Therefore, I naturally care for you all, in a manner no other 
person can do. Therefore, I in a measure, x:)rovide for you all ; for the 
supplies which Dr. Coke provides for you, he could not provide were it 
not for me — were it not, that I not only permit him to collect, but also 
support him in so doing. 



The Church of Christ. 1021 

"But in one point, my dear brother, I am a little afraid the Doctor and 
3'ou differ from me. 1 study to be little, you study to be great ; I creep, 
you strut along. I found a school, you a college. Nay, and call it after 
your own names ! O, beware ! I)o not seek to be something ! Let me 
be nothing, and Christ be ail in all 

"One instance of this, of your greatness, Las given me great concern. 
How can you, how dare you suffer yourself to be called a bishop ? I shud- 
der, I start at the very thought. Men may cali me a Ivnave, or a fool, a 
rascal, a scoundrel, and I am content ; but they shall never, hj my con- 
sent, call me a bishop ! For my sake, for God's sake, for Christ's sake, 
put a full end to this ! Let the Presbyterians do what they please, but let 
the INIethodists know their calling better. 

"Thus, my dear Franky, I have told you all that is in my heart, and let 
this, whien I am no more seen, bear witness how sincerely I am your 
affectionate friend and brother, 

"John Wesley." 

Can a friend of Wesley believe that he preferred the Episcopal form of 
government, and yet looked upon its chief order, which makes it Epis- 
copal, in such a ligiit ? Can any Methodist who does not regard Mr. 
Wesley as a double-dealer, believe that he ordained Mr. Coke an Episcopal 
bishop, and directed him to ordain Mr. Asbury, and because they allowed 
themselves to be so called, chastise them in such language as the above ; 
language which, in these days of equality, a Christian man would scorn 
to use or receive ? 

I submit the testimony of Dr. Mosheira as to the polity of 
the Apostolic churches : 

"When we look back to the commencement of the Christian church., 
we find its government administered jointly by the pastors and the peo 
pie. But in the process of time, the scene changes, and we see these 
pastors affecting an air of pre-eminence and superiority, trampling upon 
the rights and privileges of the community and assuming to themselves 
a supreme authority iDoth in civil and religious matters. This invasion 
of the rights of the people was at length carried to such a height, that a 
single man administered, or at least pretended a right to administer, the 
affairs of the wJiole church with an unlimited sway." 

"If, however, it is true that the Apostles acted by divine inspiration and 
in conformity with the commands of their blessed Master, (anil this no 
Christian can call in question,) then it follows, that that form of govern- 
ment which the primitive churches borrowed from that of Jerusalem, the 
ffrst Christian assembly established by the Apostles themselves, must be 
esteemed as Divine institution. * * * ■■• In those early times every 
Christian church consisted of the people, their leaders, [pastors] and the 
ministers or deacons, and these indeed belong essentially to every reli- 
gious society." 

"It was therefore the assembly of the people which chose their own 
rulers and teachers, or received them, by a free and authoritative consent 
when recommended by others. The same people rejected or confirmed, 
by their suffrages, the laws that were proposed by their rulers to the 
assembly ; excommunicated profligate and unworthy members of the 
church, restored the penitent to their forfeited privileges, passed judgment 
upon the different subjects of controversy and dissension that arose in 
their community, examined and decided the disputes which happened 
between the elders and deacons* and, in a word, exercised all that author- 
ity which belongs to such as are invested with the sovereign power. ' ' 

"The rulers of the church were called either presbyters, or bishops, 
which two titles are, in the New Testament, undoubtedly applied to the 
same order of men. These were persons of eminent gravity, and such as 
had distinguished themselves by their superior sanctity or merit. Their 
particular functions were not always the same ; for while some of them 



102 2 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

confined their labors to the instruction of the people, others contributed 
in different ways to the edification of the church Hence the distinction 
between teaching and ruling presbyters has been adopted by certain 
learned men. But, if ever this distinction existed, which I neither affirm 
or deny, it certainly did not continue long ; since it is manifest, that St. 
Paul requires that all bishops or bresbyters be qualified and ready to 
teach and instruct. 

"Let none, however confound the bishops of this primitive and golden 
period of the church with those of whom we read in the following ages. 
For, though they were both distinguished by the same name, yet they 
differed extremely, and that in many respects. A bishop, during the first 
and second century, was a person, who had the care of one Christian 
assembly, which, at that time, was, generally speaking, small enough to 
be contained in a private house. In this assembly he acted not so mucli 
with the authority of a master, as with the zeal and diligence of a faith- 
ful servant. 

"The churches, in those early times, were entirely independent ; none 
of them subject to any foreign jurisdiction, but each one goverened by its 
own rules, and its own laws. For though the churches founded by the 
Apostles, had this particular deference shown them, that they were con- 
sulted in difficult and doubtful cases, yet they had no juridical authority, 
no sort of supremacy over the others, nor the least right to enact laws for 
them." — [Ti7ne out. 



The Church of Christ. 1023 



DR. DITZLER'S SIXTH SPEECH. 



Gentlemen Moderatoks : — We are now told about chiirch 
division — the great separation of 1844, etc., as if it had any 
thing to do with our Propositson. Suppose all that were true, 
it affects not our question in the least. It is dragged in solely 
as so much is brought in on each Proposition, to kill or fill 
up time — not for arsrument surely. But — 

1. Our people were consulted — the vote taken in every con- 
gregation on the border. A full and regular vote "was had of 
the entire laity that would attend. Some congregations in 
Kentucky and all in Maryland, a number in Virginia, adhered 
North, with the Methodist Episcopal Church, while one in 
Cincinnati adhered South. Hence his assertion is not correct. 

2. Did they allow a full vote when (1) they seceded from 
The General Baptists, then (2) from the bona fide Calvinistic 
Baptists, etc., etc? 

3. Did the Apostolic church do as he asks, or the repre- 
sentatives do it V We have seen they did the work. 

He now tells us about what Cardinal Honorius^the bitterest 
of enemies to Protestants — says, and I quote Dr. Graves' 
words on the main points. He says that Honorius says the 
Pope and Bishops were all equal, all on an equality till A. 
D. 594 ! They were all equal till John of Constantinople "be- 
came Patriarch." Any authority of a bishop over any other 
than one church " was never known before." '^ There never 
was a bishop before (John) who usurped or held place over 
any other." It "never was claimed before him." 

I confess to you all, these statements of Dr. Graves simply 
amaze a man who knows what history is. They are simply 
astounding. He goes on to tell us they " offered that very 
title to Boniface, A. D. 606 there, the first Pope that ever sat 
on a throne, etc, " at liome. He says you "can't find it [po- 
pery] back of that time." The church in these matters 
" remained unaltered 300 or 400 years!!" He says Giesler 
the greatest of all historians tejls ns so ! 

Now sirs, we have a chance very fully to test matters. Here 
is an issue. It is clearly a pet idea with the Doctor too, for 
he made some of these assertions in his hours' opening speedi 
on Mode of Baptism. We paid no attention to the matter 
then, because it was all foreign to the Proposition then under 



1024 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

discussion. AVe have achiiinistered rebukes^ animadverted on 
the way Baptists treat bistorjand authors, and Dr. Graves has 
complained of it bitterlv. Xow let us look into the facts. 
Giesler is quoted — he is the most accurate of all historians, 
and gives you in a]] cases, of any importance, all the docu- 
ments — the original documents that support and justify his 
declarations. On tlie contrarv, vou v^'ill see that Dr. Graves'" 
statements are simply preposterous. ^Vhy, already the Roman 
Empire had fallen, l)efore 594, by over one hundred years, 
viz., 476. 

Long since the seat of empire was removed to the East. 
It was tliis that enabled the Roman Bishops to enlarge their 
powers so fearfully, because, in the absence ot the govern- 
ment, and the influence of the Bishop of Rome, man}' secular 
rio'hts and the distribution of laro-e sums of monev were o:iven 
to him. In this way orplians, protection and care of widows, 
etc., were left to him. The incursions of the Heruli, Goths, 
Saracens, all induced many to look to the Bishop of Rome 
for protection, as, the church and clergy were not molested. 

But the append, is tn a standard — the highest of all — histo- 
rian, Ave hold liim in our hand, and will read. 

The quotation Dr. Graves makes from Giesler and the as- 
sertions he makes of tlie times desio-nated are in vol. i. ij. 236 

O -L 

to 239 of his Ecclesiastical Historv. iSTow Geisler — andHase, 
Mosheim, Xeander, Bingham all say the same in substance — 
show and declare that "in the East" the West, was not, i. e., the 
Roman church (•'Rome'') was not allowed a superior claim, 
but all bishops \n tlie East ^vere equal to those of the 
AVest. " In tlie T\^est, it is true, Rome was elevated to be the 
ecclesiastical metropolis of a great part of Italy,'"' and shows 
that in some parts " such hierarchical associations'"'" had not 
obtained 236. " Metropolitans'"'" long since existed. He 
says also, " The Bishops of the three great cities of the Roman 
Empire, Rome, Alexandria and Antioch, had, at the same time, 
the largest dioceses. Hence, they were regarded as the prin- 
cipal bishops of Christendom. Still, however, at this time. 
"^ "^ all bishops were perfectly alike in dignity and power, 
etc." He then adds that much less did thej' " believe in the 
superior authority of the Romish bishop." He tells of the 
" general duties toward the whole church in addition to those 
peculiar duties they owed to their respective dioceses." p. 239 
CyprianiEpis.6T. This as early as 251-3, A. D. In those times 
he tells us of the " enlaro^ement of their dioceses and the 

CD 

clergy subject to them." (241) of " Provincial bishops," their 
"influence on the choice of a bishop," and the "bishop nom- 
inated the inferior cleraT." 247. 



The Church of Christ. 1025 

At the beginning of the fourth century, " The bishop of 
Rome stood preeminent above all his brethren at the very 
commencement of this period." 377. Archbishops, Patri- 
archs already exist in the full sense of those words exarchos 
ArchiepisGopos patriarchos. "In Egypt the bishop of Alexan- 
dria had almost monarchical power." We have a "reigning 
Patriarch," etc., 374 and 373. Patriarchs in the East, viz: of 
Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem — four. 

Leo fully developed "the idea of Peter's primacy," p. 388. 
Leo first — A. D. 440-461, tried at the Chalcedon Council to 
have "himself regarded as head of the whole church." p. 395. 

Such are only a tew of the many facts that utterly crush 
Dr. Graves' astonishing assertions on bishops, on the church in 
all leading matters. It is in this way they treat history and 
make such astonishing assertions not only in the absence of 
all support or fact, but where all the facts flatly contradict and 
expose the declarations in toto. 

It shows you, too, what little respect that class of Roman 
authors, such as Ilonorius, and Baronius are entitled to when 
treating on any method of history that relates to Prot- 
estants. They always have an eye to our injury in all they 
say, and act accordingly. We never rely on them in any such 
case. 

After such blunders as these, so bold, so reckless, you will 
know how to appreciate his assertion, that we have no church 
but in General Conference. That the laity have no voice in 
our General Conference or church. We have the laity in all 
our Councils or Conferences. A Stew^ard's meeting is nearly 
all laymen, and the preacher has no vote in the most import- 
ant issues. In a Quarterly Conference, a large majority are 
lavmen, A district Conference is not le&'islative in anv sense, 
and we have a large proportion of laymen there. In an An- 
nual Conference it is the same way. In no case can a travel- 
ing preacher vote when those laymen are elected. Laymen 
elect laymen. No one can be a preacher in our church till 
first elected by laymen. The General Conference is our legis- 
lative body. It is composed of equal numbers of laymen and 
ministers, with equal votes. A Bishop has no vote there, yet 
any layman, of a proper age, elected wholly by laymen, has. 
Now sir, these are the facts. How do they harmonize with 
what you have been asserting. 

He says it takes all our local churches to make one church. 
Were not all God's Churches in Paul's day called "one body," 
called " the Church of God?"— called "one bread ?" I Cor. x. 
17 ; xii. 12, 13 ; Col. i. 18, 25, etc. Are not all your Baptist 
churches called ^UheB-aptist Church'' — thus spoken of as one?" 
64 



102 6 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

He says one letter from aBisliop would send one of us all hitlier 
or thirl ler. We have our Bishops under well-defined law. 
and wc- — hiymen ai:d ministers — can stop, suspend, try, expel 
him froTii office. Let a Bishop violate our laws, or the spirit 
and ir.teiit thereof, and verv quicklv will he he hroup'ht to 
account for it. But in vourchui'cii a niol*. unchecked bv law, 

t t. 

can ride rouo^h-sliod ovi-r a heliiloss minoritv and thev havc^ 
no redress whatever. A minister's or member's character 
mav be crushed out. nr besj-'attered with in.famv. vet he. in- 
nocent, but denied i-edress. I'ou talk of a Eepublican forni— 
a Democratic form oi oliUrch o'overriment — von are iust the 
reverse. A Republican form of government is a government 
of well defined rights, laws, and ofiicers to execute the laws 
under leo-ai restraint — in well defined wavs. Xothine of the 
kind have you. A Eepublican form of Government allows 
the legal majority to make the laws — elect ofiicers. Then 
these execute tlie laws bv processes well-defined. Xothino- of 
the kind have yon. Yours is not a Democracy — not a gov- 
ernment of laws by the people, but a mrjhocracii simple and 
pure. 

lie savs a conference can take pronertv awav. etc. Here 
again he is lame. It has laws to regulate all such matters. 
and parties known in law. to protect property. When these 
chose, they can sell the property under direction from a cpiar- 
terlv conference of lavman. But vour church is such an airv 
nothing, that in law the finest legal telescope cannot see you 
or vour laws. You dissolve into thin mist. Hence law suits 
in congregational churches, like serious trials, are burlesques. 

He at last ventures to attack a little item of doctrine, held 
bv all D'reat divines, that we are to be reconciled not onlv to 
God, but God reconciled to us. AVe Cjuote only one text. 
Christ gives it, puts in the mouth ot a penitent sinner, "God 
be merciful;" the Greek is, - God be eecoxciled to me a sin- 
ner!'* "Can two walk together except they be agreed : ''" — 
reconciled? You see tliat all, all fails. 

He talks about what a sacrament is and fain would impres? 
you that it is some Bomish idea of monstrous iniquity. How 
does TTebster define it?'' "Asacred ceremony used to bind 
or impress an obligation.'" That is, we are pledged to live 
Christian lives, have taken on us the vows of the Almighty. 
2sow the Lord's Supper is done in remembrance of him to 
whom we have pledged our lives' devotion, and so is used by 
so remindins: us of Christ's death till he come asfain : "to bind 
or impress" this oblio-ation. And that is somethino- terrible 
is it? What next, Doctor? 

The Doctor has constantly tried to make it appear that we 



The Church of Christ. 1027 

were quite Romisli in onr chiircb. We have seen how utterly 
he has failed. Has he thought of his own? We saw that his 
church is committed to infallibility. That is a very import- 
ant article. They hold absolutely to the position that water 
Baptism is an initiatory rite into Christ's Kingdom. Is there 
salvation out of that Kingdom? That is purelv Romish. 
Rome holds that they are the church, and there is no other 
body which can claim to be a church. Baptists do the same. 
Rome claims apostolic succession. So do these Baptists. Home 
holds that only one in the succession can rightly administer 
the ordinances. So does Dr. Graves and his successionists. 
How will that do for a specimea of Romanism? 

We now call your especial attention to the following. 
By Baptist rules— according to Baptist principles there is no 
Church of God. 

1. They demand there be shown an organised, established 
church. They found no such process of organization. Dr. 
Graves went to the Mount — it was not there. He found no 
other place where he could dare locate it, so he lets it go. 

2. They demand succession in order to church existence, 
Ko such succession can be traced. It does not exist. Hence 
by their principles there is no church—- never can be. 

3. Without water baptism as the initiatory rite, no one can 
get into the church, ^o one was baptized on the Mount 
where he locates its organization, so to be consistent, there 
exists no church 

4« Without '' specific forms" of law^ a model to go by, a 
" system of laws of Government," there can be no church, by 
Dr. Grave's position. ISTone such existed— were made on the 
Mount, and he finds no organization later to start from, so we 
have no church at all. 

5. Unless five things hold good in every case, the party is 
not baptized, it is not baptism, and so he is not a member of 
the church. In no case of baptism since John and the Apos- 
tles, did all five of these conditions, or four of these condi- 
tions hold good. Hence there is no church, and never can be 
on earth. 

Kow we appeal to this audience, did you not expect so able 
and so practiced a man to be able to make some show at least 
on a question of their own seeking? They demanded this 
question. It was unpleasant and distasteful to all our people, 
because the very idea of the putting into discussion the ques- 
tion ot the existence of a people's church, the church that set- 
tled the West; that led the banner of civilization on; 
that met the dangers of the bloody tomahawk, the dagger and 
the arrow; that surmounted all obstacles, and planted the ban- 



I028 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

ner of Emanuel in all these prairies — to start a proposition 
that asked whether she was a church or not, was an insult and 
affront. We have hurled it' back upon them. To-day our 
record is on high. We have sent our most gifted men, our 
finest orators, our most accomplished scholars, our purest 
men into the ever expanding West. 

We have planted the banner on every hill, on every prairie, 
in every hut. We led you, and our cause inspired you. 
Your success has been under the broad aegis of our presence. 
You stopped to quarrel with us by the way. We begged for 
peace. You grew defiant. We insisted for peace for the 
Gospel's sake. You grew aggressive. We turned out of your 
way and sought peace. You grew insolent and slapped us in 
the face. Then we throttled you! And now we are in dead 
earnest. We have all the facts. We have all the right on 
our side. We have the truth with us — the Bible of God. 
Have you observed how he has paraded in every proposition 
what some old time Encyclopedise said; what this old Anno- 
tator thought, and the other reviewer guessed. He has 
thrown out a huge drag-net and pulled to shore out of the 
deep sea of oblivion a mass of old trash of which the writers 
were long since ashamed and heart-sick— he has dragged it 
out and held it up before you. What was our course ? Here 
was our text book — here is our foundation — this grand old 
Bible. He quotes Deems, when he was mad. We quoted 
the Bible. He quoted Bascom when he was vexed and tor- 
tured into bitterness. We quoted the Bible. He quoted 
Jesse.Lee when he was out of temper and furious. We turned 
to the Bible. When he came to a history, he guessed at three 
fourths, and missed every time, and fell back on a bitter and 
hateful enemv of the Reformation — Cardinal Honorious. We 
quoted the very great historian Dr. Graves introduced. On 
Methodist history he relied on assertion and the embittered 
sayings of our enemies. We took standard Baptist historians 
exclusively — men selected and endorsed by the Baptists of the 
United States. How different our courses in all these things. 
Hence our position has never been seriously assaulted. 
Special pleading was and is his hope. All our points were 
made out, perfectly supported, and will stand forever. — \TiT.u 
out. 



The Church of Christ. 1029 



DR. GRAVES' SIXTH REPLY. 

Mr. President: — If my opponent can affbrcl to leave the 
defence of his Society, and spend his time upon matters for- 
ei^-n to this question — I have no time to follow him. I once 
more, with all the emphasis of our language, ask him to meet 
and answer me these questions — which correctly answered, 
settle this question. 

1. Do you claim to be a member of any visible Church on 
earth ? If you do, then, 2, Is your membership in any local M. 
E. Society like ihis in Carrollton ? or is the membership of 
any traveling preacher, or of any Bishop, in a local society, 
like this, or only in an Annual Conference, which is confess- 
edly no church at all ! And once more. Do you endorse the 
definition of Church, given in the XIII. Art. of your Discipline? 
While he is deciding whether to answer, and how to answer 
these, I will push rapidly forward my objections in refutation 
of this proposition. 

I have said that in this is the very essence of the papacy, 
and I now say that Pope is but Bishop written large. Let me 
refer you to a historical fact. Before the year 594 no man 
had ever claimed or worn the title or exercised the authority 
of Pope I. e. Universal Pontiff. Prior to this time every Bishop 
was called fapa, in English, Father. In this year John, Bishop 
of Constantinople, sought the supremacy and assumed the title 
of Universal Bishop — " chief minister" of all. Gregory, the 
then Bishop and called Pope of Rome, addressed to his brother 
John a letter, which Cardinal Baronius has preserved. In 
that epistle he rebukes his arrogance and sin in these forcible 
words, which I commend to your chief ministers. 

''Gregory, to John, Bishop of Constantinople. — Let your holiness ac- 
knowledge, that ^Discipulis Dominus dicit^ autem nolite vocari rabbi^ 
unus enim Magister vester est, vos omnes fratres estis,^ &e. 'Our Lord 
says to his disciples, 'Be not ye called rabbi, for one is your Master, and 
all ye are brethren ' What therefore, most dear brother, are you, in the 
terrible examination of the coming Judge, to say, who, generalis pater in 
mundo vocari appetis f desire to be called, not father, only, but the gener- 
eral father of the world ? 

"Beware of the sinful suggestions of the wicked. Offences must indeed 
come, but wo to that man by whom the offence cometh Behold, the 
church is rent by this wicked world of pride ; the hearts of the brethren 
are offended. Have yon forgotten what truth saith ? 'Whoso offendeth 
one of these little ones who believes in me, it were better for him that a 
millstone were hanged about his neck, and he plunged into the depth of 
the sea. 



1030 The Great C.^rrolltox Deeate. 

••'I bes". I enireat. and I beseech, wirh. all possible STiavirv. that vour 
brothernoud resist aii inese natTerers vrho ontr y c-u this name of error, 
and thai yon refase to be designated by so looiish and so prond an appel- 
lation. 

" 'Perpende, rogo, quia in }i.o.q pre-yaraptione paxtr^ziuizv-ThotaT eccle- 
»icE,'' «fco. ''Consider, I entreat you. "' ' ':y this rash presnniption is the 
peace of the whole ehurcli disturtied. :: \- ■. :L;e gTuee pi'Ur.r'i out in eummon 
upon all contradicted : In Tvhich you can incTeas-r only in propDrtion as 
you carefully decrease in self-e=Tre:ri, ::". ■ " : ? ^.'z-^ greater the more 
you restrain yourself from, this n:\ ..r -:' . : _ . . _ : ^^--:. usurpation. 

"TVere not, as your broths - . knows, my 1; : ; -- : rs in this apos- 
tolical see, which I now serve -7 ' - ■•'''s providerxi _ . j^vlL-i by the c-ouncil 
of Chalc-edon to this oliere«i hon : 11 none of them would ever alljw 

hiniseh' to be named by such a ni^t — none sii * Vrd at this rash name, 
lest if he should seize on th:? sinsinlar glory 1: : :^c ponritieate, he should 
seem to deny it to all his r 

^'Sed omnia quce prredic.u y.//.:. nunt : rex sup^rbia-s prope est et quod 
did neja-< e-sf, sacerdotarn e^ pr^piaratu-s exita-s xel exercitu-^ ei^^qmcpr- 
vice militant elafionis." "Bnt all things which are foretold are come to 
pass ; the king of pride approaches, and O, horrid to tell I the going fortti 
of (or the army of the priests} is ready for him, who flght with the neck 
of pride, though appointed to lead to hmoility. Lib. ^5 ep. BS. 

Gregory also addressed a letter to the Emperor Mairiiiu5 
and tlie Empress, from wLicli I will read one sentence. 

''To the Emi)eror Alauritius and the Empress. — "Xow this brother by a 
PEEsrMpnox zsEYHB BzroBE KXOW3", contrary to the precepts of the 
gospel, and to the decrees of the canons, usurping a new name, glorying 
in new and profane titles, which blasphemy be far from every Christian 
heart, would b>e called universal bishop ; but in this his pride what doth 
he but sho'w the time of antichrist approaches, because he imitates bim 
who. d^pising his brother angels, ^ould rise to a height x>ecuhar to him- 
self, that he might bie subject to none. "When he who is called univCTsal 
falls, the church that hath consented to that profane name hath rushed 
headlong from its state: but far b«e that blasphemous name irom the 
hearts of Christians. To consent to that wicked word universal is nothing 
else but to destroy the faith.' ■■ Tib. -4, ej). SS. 

Then. accorcUng to Pope Greg»3ry. it was antichristian. blasphemous. 
and diabDlical for any bishop to assume the title supreme head, and heresy 
and a losing of the fajth for any one to acknowledge it, and that all 
should strive against it to death. Hence, from this pope's testimony, it 
is pretty evident that .St, Peter had norhina: to do with it. Yet in a few 
years, in 606. his own succ-essor. Boniface LEI., : . : : 1 :f the Em.peror 
PhocaS;^ took this very title, which Gr:_ :"r : ;; ; rxeoiable. Thus has 
a Pope of Pome, with great point and : . . : . : 7 :„ :re than twelve hun- 
dred years ago, marked the distinct ehai'aorer . : ::^e man of sin. the son 
of perdition, as being a Christian bishop with :\n iiniy 01 inferior minis- 
ters or priests, taking to him in his pride the title universal or soyereigQ 
pontifi". that is. antichrist, and an Zv I^l' :'i>:J Ijish'jp of the Tl.:: " ' : o.-r is 
none the less so 1 1 1 

This will interest many as to the origin and the exitet date 
of the birth of the first Eoman Pontiff — the ":;:r:h of the Ro- 
mish Catholic Chnrch besfotten bv command o: Phoeas A. D. 



* "Phocas iratus Ciriaco Episcopo Constantinopolitano adiudicavit 
tiu;l::_'_ CE::'\zmei Pontiilci Romano =:'!;. " — B:.r:n:v.-, An. a. c. 606. 
'■Pi_:;--, r:._ incensed against Ciriuo.i- Bi-^ v. ;: Constantinople, 
who had assumed the ritle, granted the title s: ; : ,;; : pontiff to the Po- 
man bishop.-' 



The Church of Christ. 1031 

606, and born as the seven beaded and ten horned beast of 
Revelation A. D. 610, to continue 1260 years, as a civil and 
temporal power, and consequently expired January 1st, 1870, 
from which hour the Papacy has had no power to put to 
death, punish with sword, or hurt the bodies of its people. 
But I have sometimes thought that Methodism may possibly 
be symbolized by the two horned beast, that came up out of 
the earth, havin^i^ the face and horns of a lamb, but speaking 
like a dragon. 

But I urge as a fundamental and vital objection to this local 
M. E. Society and the whole system of Methodism, of which 
it is a part — being a Church of Christ, or any branch of it. 

VI. Because its Doctrines, as set forth in its Discipline 
IN THE Works of Wesley, and its Standard Publications, 

ARE BOTH UnSCRIPTURAL AND SUBVERSIVE OF ChRIST'S ChURCH, 

and of Christianity, and put in Peril the Souls of all 
WHO believe them. 

The first question is, where are we to learn what the doc- 
trines of the M. E. "Church" are — the doctrines that this lo- 
cal M. E. Society in Carrollton must hold and teach, and what 
every member, whether an exhorter, Deacon, Elder, Pre- 
siding Elder, or Bishop has solemnly obligated himself to hold* 
and teach. 

If you will refer to the Manual I hold in my hands, put 
forth by Bishop McTyeire, at the request of, and endorsed by 
the General Conference, you will learn that it is not only 
from the articles of religion and discipline, but from all the 
standard theological books pu])lished by the Book Concern, 
Adam Clarke, R. Watson, but Wesley's Works in particular 
and even the Methodist hymn book. 

Kow observe it matters not a hair's weight what Elder 
Ditzler may say he does or does not believe touching this or 
that doctrine, but what is the doctrine of his church, as set 
forth in these works. If he affirms that he does not believe 
them, but stands before you and opposes them, then it is clear 
unless he has obtained from his Conference and chief minister, 
his ecclesiastical masters, a "dispensation" — an indulgence of 
some sort, absolving him from the force of his oath, he stands 
before you in the light of a minister, who has sworn to believe, 
to hold, and to teach, and which, by his priestly ministrations 
and religious examples, he does teach what he at heart does 
not believe, but publicly opposes! And if he, to excite your 
prejudices, should put up the cry of persecution, because I 
develop the unscriptural doctrines contained in these stand- 
ards, you know it will be both dishonorable and cowardly. 



1032 The Great Carrollton Dejbate. 

I open the Discipline and read Article II: 

The Son, who is the Word of the Father, the verj'' and eternal God, of 
one substance with the Father, tooli man's nature in the womb of the 
blessed Virgin; so that two whole and perfect natures — that is to say, the 
Godhead and manhood — were joined together in one person, never to be 
divided, whereof is one Christ, very God and very man, who truly suf- 
fered, was crucified, dead and buried, to reconcile His Father to us, and 
to be a sacrifice, not only for original guilt, but also for actual sins of men. 
— Meth. Dis. Art. ii, p. lO. 

This teaches that the second person in the Trinity, took 
upon or united with himself a perfect man, having human 
soul as well as body — in the act of incarnation, and that 
this perfect man was so joined to him as never to be 
divided, and therefore the second person in Heaven to-day is 
a duality^ a compound being, a man and a God, and is called 
Christ, and this being is and will be the object of w^orshiD 
forever! A perfect human being is thus apotheosized and 
idolized! The Papists have incorporated Mary, a perfect 
woman, with the Godhead, making four persons, and Metho- 
dists thus incorporated a perfect man with the Trinity, and if 
the former is obnoxious to the charofe of idolatrv, I see not 
why the latter is not. I would as soon worship a perfect wo- 
man as a perfect man. 

That Christ suffered and died " to reconcile the Father to 
us," is quite as crude to my mind, as Elder Ditzler's teaching 
that the Covenant of Redemption Was made vvith Abraham, 
and Christ became surety to Abraham that His Father would 
fulfill his part of the covenant. The Sacred Scriptures teach 
that. 

All things are of God, who hath reconciled to us himself by Jesus 
Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation ; to-wit. That 
God was in Christ, reconciling the w^orld unto himself, not imputing their 
tresi)asses unto them ; and hath committed unto us the word of reconcil- 
iation. 

I open to Art'.cle xvi, and read: — 

Sacraments, ordained of Christ, are not only badges or tokens of Chris- 
tian men's profession, but rather they are certain signs of grace, and God's 
good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth 
only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our faith in him. 

There are two sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the gospel ; 
that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord." 

From this I learn, 1. That both baptism and the Lord's 
Supper are "sacraments." This is a theological term and 
signifies a rite that not only creat-ss or brings into special and 
spiritual relations to Christ, but ratifies them also — universally 
among Ritualists, it is used to denote a "means uf grace," of 
converting, regenerating, justifjung or confirming grace. In 
this article it is said to be a rite, by the which God doth 
work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also 
strengthen our faith in him. The first work accomplished by 



The Church of Christ. 1033 

the Holy Spirit upon a sinner dead in sins, is to quicken him, 
and so enable him to exercise faith, etc. Baptism, then, ac- 
cording to this article, is held and taught as the appointed 
means of regeneration, so that we may not expect the eflect 
without the means. 

Wesley thus explains a sacrament. 

" The parts of a sacrament are two: the one, an outward and sensible 
sign ; the other an inward and spiritual grace, thereby signified." 

I open the Ritual, for the baptism of infants, and read: 

" Dearly beloved, forasmuch as all men are conceived and born in sin, 
and that our Savior Christ saith, Except a man be born of water and of 
the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." 

I understand this to teach from the context, and from the 
explanation Wesley gives us, that no one can enter heaven or 
be saved without baptism. Wesley explains this in his Trea- 
tise on Baptism. 

*' By baptism, we who were " by nature children of wrath," are made 
the children of God. And this regeneration which our Church in so 
many places ascribes to baptism is more than barely being admitted into 
the Church,, though commonly connected therewith ; being " grafted into 
the body of Christ's Church, we are made the children of Ood by adop- 
tion and grace.'''' This is grounded on the plain words of our Lord, 
* 'Except a man be born again of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter 
into the kingdom of God," John iii. 5. By water then^ as a means, the 
water of baptism, we are regenerated or born again; whence it is also 
called by the Apostle, " the washing of regeneration." Our Church there- 
fore ascribes no greater virtue to baptism than Christ himself has done. 
Nor does she ascribe it to the outward washing, but to the inward grace, 
which, added thereto, makes it a sacrament. Herein a principle of grace 
is infused, which will not be wholly taken away, unless we quench the 
Holy Spirit of God by long continued wickedness." — Wesley's Works, 
Vol. vi. p. 15, Sec. 4. 

I now read the rest of the exhortation : 

*' I beseech you to call upon God the Father, through our Lord Jesus 
Christ, that of his bounteous mercy he will grant to this child that which 
by nature he cannot have : that he may be baptized with water and the 
Holy Ghost, and received into Christ's holy Church, and made a lively 
member of the same." 

I understand from this that the infant is recognized as a 
depraved being, dead to spiritual things, and that God is be- 
sought to confer on it, in and by the act of baptism, three 
things; (1), regeneration of heart, (2), quicken and make it 
alive from the dead, (3), receive it into the church visible. 
Elder Ditzler says invisible, then of course the prayer is to 
regenerate and sanctify it, for no unregenerate infant or 
adult was ever a member of that ideal church in the estima- 
tion of any one ! 

I now read the first prayer: 

" Almigty and everlasting God, we beseech thee for thine infinite mer- 
cies, that thou wilt look upon this child : wash him and sanctify him with 
the Holy Ghost ; that he, being delivered from thy wrath, may be received 
into the ark of Christ's Church." 

This certainly teaches three things. (1.) That every infant 



1034 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

baptized by this office is regarded, not as an innocent being, 
as Eld. Ditzler teaches, but a depraved sinner, since it is under 
the wrath of God, from which the Methodist ministers pray 
that infants may be delivered. (2). In the act of baptism, as 
the means the infant may be washed and sanctified by the Holy 
Spirit. (3). That by the act it is received into Christ's Church, 
and made a member of the same. If more proof of this is 
wanted, I will read two more petitions : 

" O merciful God, grant that the old Adam in this child may be so 
buried' that the new m.an may be raised up in him. Amen.''^ 

" Grant that all carnal affections may die in him^ and that all things 
belonging to the Spirit may live and grow in him. Amen.'''' 

" Grant that whosoever is dedicated to thee by our office and ministry 
may also be endued with heavenly virtues, and everlastingly rewarded 
through thy mercy, O blessed Lord "God." 

"Regard, we beseech thee, the supplications of thy congregation; and 
grant that this childj now to be baptized, may receive tlie fullness of thy 
grace, and ever remain in the number of thy faithful and elect children, 
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.^^ 

It is evident that the Church that first used this Ritual as a 
general practice, immersed its members, infants as well as 
adults. These petitions most certainly teach that the carnal 
nature, with its afifections, can be and are destroyed in the 
act of baptism, and that the unconscious infant can be, by the 
act, endued with "heavenly virtues, and in the act "receive 
the fullness of God's s-race," and be introduced — for thev could 
not remain where they were not placed — into the number of 
God's faithful and elect children," and such are never lost. 
So admits Dr. Bledsoe in his Art. on the Salvation of God's 
Elect. [N'ow to be certain that I do not misinterpret the 
Ritual, when I say it teaches that baptism is recognized in it 
as the means of grace and salvation to the infant; so, that 
without it, there is no promise of heaven to it, I will turn to 
the explanation of this Ritual, and of the doctrine of I)aptism 
as held by this Societ}^ in Carrollton, and Methodists ISTorth 
and South, by the man who prepared it for his Church, John 
Wesley. His writings and views are endorsed as the s''MiHlai-(l 
doctrines of the M. E. Church. 

I will quote from a book titled "Doctrinal Tracts" issued by 
the Methodist Book Concern, IsTorth, and the edition issued 
prior to 1861. I do this for special reasons. 

1. Many of these extracts which I shall read have ' coi 
quoted by me in the paper I edit. The Baptist^ and used by our 
ministers when objecting to the doctrines of Methodists, and 
since 1861 the leaders have taught their people to deny that 
they were in the "Doctrinal Tracts," and are wont to produce 
the issues since 1861 to prove it. I shall therefore read from 
the uuchanoced edition and let Elder Ditzler here deny that 



The Church of Christ, 1035 

what I read was ever in the Doctrinal Tracts; and if he does 
not, his silence will disprove the statements of thousands of 
his^people concerning this matter. I read from the Doctrinal 
Tracts because Eld. Ditzler has published all over the South- 
west, and openly stated in this debate, (on the Lord's Supper) 
that Wesley never wrote this Treatise and that it was inserted 
in the editions prior to 1861 b}^ mistake or under the impres- 
sion that it was Wesley's. 

Well, if anybody ought to knovv Wesley's writings and sen- 
timents, surely the learned editors of "Wesley's Life and 
Works," and the editors of the works issued by the Book 
Concern ought. They stated in the edition of 1832, that this 
treatise is John Wesley's, and the Book Concern publishes it for 
forty-three years as John Wesley's Treatise, and of course for 
this length of time it is endorsed as the faith of Methodists. 

L'l the new editiow, 1861, they say they substituted another 
article for Mr. Wesley's treatise, thus endorsing it as Wesley's. 
I now ooen Mr. Wesley's Works, Vol. vi. p. 12, and I find this 
entire "Treatise" word for word ! Will Eld. Ditzler now per- 
sist in sajdng that it is not Mr. Wesley's Work? I^ow what 
does the church through him teach, are the benefits infants, 
received in baptism ? 

"What are the benefits we receive by baptism, is the next point 
to be considered. (And the first of these is, the washing away the guilt 
of original sin, by the application of the merits of Christ's death.) That 
we are all born under the guilt of Adam's sin, and that all sin deserves ex- 
ternal misery, was the unanimous sense of the ancient Church, as it is ex- 
pressed in the Ninth Article of our own. And the Scripture plainly asserts 
that we were "shapen in iniquity, and in sin did our mother conceiv*^us;" 
that "we were all by nature children of wrath, and dead in trespasser and 
sins ;" that "in Adam all die :" that "by one man's disobedience all were 
made sinners;" that "by one man sin entered into the world, and death 
by sin ; which came upon all men, because all had sinned." This plainly 
includes infants : for they too die ; therefore they have sinned ; but not by 
actual sin ; therefore by original ; else what need have tliey of the death 
of Christ? Yea, "death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those 
who had not sinned " actually " according to the similitude of Adam's 
transgression." This, which can relate to infants onty, is a clear proof 
that the whole race of mankind are obnoxious both to the guilt and pun- 
ishment of Adam's transgression. But "as by the offence of one, judg- 
ment came upon all men to condemnation, so by tlie righteousness of one, 
the free gift came upon all men, to justification of life." And tlie virtue 
of this free gift, the merits of Christ's life and death, are applied to us in hap- 
tism. "He gave himself for the church, that he miglit sanctify and cleanse 
it with the washing of water by the word," Eph. v. 25, 26, namely, in 
baptism, the ordinary instrument of our justification. Agreeably to this, 
our church prays in the beiptismal office, that the person to be baptized 
may be " washed and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, and, being delivered 
from God's wrath, receive remission of sins, and enjoy the everlasting ben- 
ediction of his heavenly washing;" and declare in the rubric at the end of 
the office, " It is certain, by God's word, that children who are baptized, 
dying before they commit actual sin are saved." — Wesley^ s Works voL 
vi., page 14. 



1036 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

But Eld. Ditzler has maintained that infants are born "inno- 
cent," "lit for heaven," and therefore are entitled to baptism. 

By baptism we are admitted into the church, and consequently made 
members of Christ, its head." 

*'In the ordinary way, there is no other means of entering into the 
Church or into heaven." 

But Eld. Ditzler says infants are born into the church. 

"By baptism, we who were "by nature children of wrath," are made 
the children of God." "In all ages, the outward baptism is a means of 
the inward ; as outward circumcision was of the circumcision of the 
heart." — Wesley^ s Works, vol. vi. p. 15. 

"As to the grounds of it — If infants are guilty of original sin, then they 
are proper subjects of baptism ; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot 
be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism. It has been already 
proved, that this original stain cleaves to every child of man ; and that 
hereby they are children of wrath, and liable to eternal darmiation. It is 
true, the Second Adam has found a remedy for the disease which came 
upon all by the offence of the first. But the benefit of this is to be received 
through the 7neans which he hath appointed; through baptism in ptartic- 
vXar, which is the ordinary means he hath appointed for that purpose ; 
and to which God hath tied us, though he may not have tied himself. 
Indeed, where it cannot be had, the case is different ; but extraordinary 
cases do not make void a standing rule. This, therefore, is our First 
ground. Infants need to be Avashed from original sin ; therefore they are 
proper subjects of baptism " — Wesley'' s Works ^ vol. vi., p. 10. 

"A man may possibly be "born of water," and yet not be "born of the 
Spirit." There may sometimes be the outward sign, where there is not the 
inward grace. I do not now speak witli regard to infants ; it is certain our 
church supposes, that all who are baptized in their infancy, are at the 
same time born again ; and it is allowed that the whole office for the bap- 
tism of infants proceeds upon this supposition. Nor is it an objection of 
any weight against this, that we cannot comprehend how this work can 
be wrought in infants. For neither can we comprehend how it is wrought 
in a person of riper years." — Wesley'' s Works, vol. i., p. 405. 

Can anyone doabt that the M. E. church holds and teaches 
til at baptism is the means of salvation to infants, and that in 
the "ordinary way" none can be saved without it? and who 
knows of an extraordinary way? I will ask my opponent whose 
church teaches the damnation of unconscious infants? The 
necessity of baptism to salvation which Baptists never held, 
originated the idea of the necessity of infant baptism and the 
practice this day is continued for the self-same reasons that it 
confers some needed ISpiritual grace or benefit or that it makes 
the salvation of the infant more certain at least. 

I open a book here entitled " Morris' Sermons" — published 
by the Book concern j^orth. The author is a Bishop of the 
M. E. C. (if not dead.) 

" All infants need the thing which baptism represents — namely, the 
purification of their nature by the grace of God. To charge my congTe- 
gation with denying this, would be to charge them with being Pelagians ; 
and we will lose" no time in proving now what all Christians allow to be 
true — the depravity of human natui-e." 

" But if they [infants] have an interest in the covenant of grace, why 
deprive them of baptism, the initiating ordinance under that covenent, 

BEING THE TRUE ChKISTI AN CIRCUMCISION ?' 



The Chijrch of CsRist. 1037 

" As infants were members under that Gospel covenant by circumcision, 
so they should be now by baptism, which Paul calls the circumcision of 
Christ." — Manns' Sermons^ p. 245. 

He states here that baptism is the '•' true circumcision,^^ " the 
circumcision of Christ," which every Christian knows is the 
regeneration of the heart. Infants, he says, need this to fit 
them for heaven, and therefore they should be baptized be- 
cause it is the only appointed means to obtain it, says Mr. ' 
Wesley. 

Il^ow let us examine the Ritual for the Baptism of adults. 

We find throughout, the self-same expressions as in the office 

for infants, and of course thev mean the same thins; as ex- 

plained by Wesley. The whole office proceeds upon the fact 

that every adult baptized by the M. E. Church is a sinner un- 

regenerate and comes to baptism to be released from his sins 

and to receive regeneration of heart in the act. 

" Then the minister shall speak to the persons to be baptized on this 
wise : Well-beloved, who are come hither, desiring to receive holy baptism, 
ye have heard how the congregation hath prayed that our Lord Jesus 
Christ would vouchsafe to receive you, and bless you. To rt^lease you 
OF YOUR SINS, to give YOU THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, and everlasting 
life. And our Lord Jesus Clirist hath promised in his holy word to grant 
all those things that we have prayed for ; which promise he for his part 
will most surely keep and perform." — Discipline^ p. 210. 

The office does not reco2:nize or admit the idea that thev are 
already Christians saved, pardoned, or reganerate, or can be 
without baptism. There is no ceremony or prayer for the 
baptism of a believer, of a recognized regenerate person, in 
the Discipline ! Therefore Christian Baptism is unknown in 
the M. E. Church. Every one baptized by Methodist minis- 
ters must be baptized as a confessedly unregenerate sinner, to 
receive the grace of remission, regeneration and salvation! 
I refer you to Wesley's explanation of its nature and benefits, 

I now open the Hymn Books of the two Divisions of Meth- 
odism, and examine the Hymns on Baptism. In the Northern 
Book, besides the Invocation, there are nine hymns—eight are 
for infants, and one that may be used for infants or adults, 
but each teach the self-same doctrine— baptismal efficacy, 
spiritual regeneration effected by baptism as a sacrament!- — 
that it is the seal that imparts and ratifies the benefits of the 
covenant of grace. I will give you one, found in both, No, 280* 

Father, in these reveal thy Son ; 

In these, for whom we seek thy face. 
The hidden mystery make knoWn, 

The inward, pure, baptizing grace. 

Jesus, ¥/ith us thou always art ; 

Effectual make the sacred sign ; 
The gift unspeakable impart. 

And bless the ordinance divine. 



T038 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Eternal Spirit, from on high, 

Baptizer of our spirits thou, 
The sacramental seal apply, 

And witness with the water now.'^ 

Thus have we seen that the statement of Mr. Wesley is true, 
that the whole office for baptism in the M. E. Societj^, proceeds 
upon the supposition that in the ^'ordinary way" — i. e., so far 
as the Scri[)tures reveal it, no one can be born again, unless 
by baptism as a means, and that it is the doctrine of the M. 
E. Society, that every infant is certainly born again in its bap* 
tism, and that without it in the " ordinary way/' they are lost 
and that in the ordinary way all adults are born again in bap- 
tism — the teachings of the Ritual suppose it- — though to this 
there may be exceptions. 

These being the well known doctrines of Methodism, we 
can understand why they do not restrict baptism to the in- 
fants of believing parents, or to professed believers in Christ, 
but urge it upon all classess, young and old men, without any 
conditions save a professed desire "to flee the wrath to 
come." 

We can also understand why they place pardon of sin and 

regeneration after baptism, and thus strike hands with Camp- 

bellites, oi- Disciples. I will read a paragraph here from the 

sermons of Bishop Morris: 

11. True penitents are proper subjects of baptism^ 

1. Baptism is one of the means of Grace; and, therefore, suitable for 
penitents, wlio need all the help they can get. 80 Peter understood it, 
as it appears from the advice he gave those who were smitten under his 
preaching: "Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, 
and said unto Peter and the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what 
shall we do ? Then Peter said unto them. Repent, and be baptized every 
one of you in tlie name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye 
shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost." Here, Acts ii, 37, 88, we can but 
mark the difference between the system of some Calvinistic teachers, and 
that of the Gospel. Their system is, 1. Conversion. 2. Kepentance. 3. 
Pardon; and lastly, baptism. But Peter's arrangement is, 1. Bepen- 
tance. 2. Baptism. S.Bardon; and, 4. The witness of the Spirit. — Mor- 
ris' Sermons, p. 248. 

It will not do for Elder Ditzler to storm over this matter, 
and charge me with attributing doctrines to his Society that 
I know it does not hold or teach. I have not done so. I 
do know that this is the teaching and practice of his church, 
touching baptism, and it is not the obsolete but the present 
doctrine and teachings of his Conferences. To further prove 
my assertion, I will read an article from the pen of Dr. Hen- 
drickson, of Jackson, Tenn., that appeared in the last volume 
of my paper, published in the city of Memphis, and his state- 
ment has not been challenged by any Methodist Advocate or 
authority : 



The Church of Christ. 1039 

Professing Regeneration Before Baptism an Evil. 

"We were annoyed to find the declaration in one of the official reports 
published by the last Memphis Conference, in the Methodist Advocate, 
of Memphis We were so accustomed to read in the New Testament of 
persons professing faith or regeneration before baptism, that the evil of 
such a profession never occurred to us before. Then we knew that Bap- 
tists, " from the days of John the Baptist until now," had always required 
a profession of regeneration before baptism, and had never been conscious 
of any evil from this course. We couid but wonder at the declaration of 
the Methodist Conference. We knew that the creed of this powerful de- 
nomination was rather strong on baptismal regeneration, and we knew 
also that their form of administering baptism (sprinkling) was fully com- 
mitted to this doctrine, but we had been led to hope that their practice 
was better than their creed. But in this official document in this report 
on the state of religion, written by an able committee, and adopted and 
published by the Conference, we find that our hopes were groundless. They 
declaim against " regeneration before baptism," and in this are directly at 
variance With the word of God. On this subject, as well as many others, 
Methodigts and Baptists are as widely separated as the poles. 

We quote from the Conference document, published, we think, in De- 
cember last, that our readers may see what ground our Methodist friends 
are occupying on the question of regeneration : 

''Baptism, too has been unnecessarily deferred, not only in the case of 
children but sometimes postponed to an indefinite period in the case of 
adults. The practice of requiring a public profession of regeneration be- 
fore baptism, has resulted in evil, and that the design of tlae sacrament is 
perverted and the people encouraged to expect the Divine blessing with- 
out the use of means. We call attention to these evils, that we may seek 
diligently to remove them." 

Let this suffice. "The profession of regeneration before baptism per- 
verts the design of the sacrament, inasmuch as it encourages the people 
to expect the blessing of regeneration without the use of means," that is, 
without baptism. What more can Episcopal ritualists say? W'hat more 
can Rome say? Blood will tell. Daughter, mother, grandmother; there 
is a family likeness." 

I therefore restate my objection on this point. The M. E. 
Society in Carrollton, lacks an essential and vital character- 
istic of a scriptural church in that it is without a scriptural 
baptism, and by its teachings perverts and subverts the form, 
design^ and intent of the ordinance, making it the means of 
regeneration, and thereby imperiling the souls of men.— [Z'/me 
out. 

[Mr. President, 1 Will take fifteen minutes to put in all my new matter 
and you can allow the same to my opponent or take it from my next 
speech according to our understanding.] 

It is evident, therefore, that Baptist churches can in no 
way endorse or approve what Methodists call '^ baptisms," 
though administered by immersion. Since it is not only ad- 
ministered by an organization that is not a church, and therefore 
has no authority, and by ministers unbaptized and unauthor- 
ized, but because the sign with which they are administered 
is both unscriptural and pernicious. 

Methodism is without Scriptural baptism » But I furthermore 



1040 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

charge under this head, that teachings of the M. E. Society, in 
connection with the Lord's Supper, are both unscriptural and 
of pernicious tendency. 

1. The Lord's Supper is held and practiced by Methodists 
as a " sacrament " in the sense that Wesley explains baptism to 
be one ; that to the outward act there is an inward grace added, 
and that this grace is "converting," "regenerating," "justify- 
ing grace, and therefore her ministers offer it to, and urge its 
observance upon the unregenerate, in order to secure these 
graces. To prove that this is the standard doctrine of Meth- 
odism, I quote from Wesley's W^orks, Yol. HI, pp. 188-189: 

" Wed. 85 — From those words, 'All Scripture is given by inspiration of 
God,' I took occasion to speak of the ordhiances of God, as they are means 
of gTace. 

"Although this expression of our Church, 'means of grace,' be not 
found in Scri^Dtm-e ; yet, if the sense of it undeniably is, to cavil at the 
term is a mere strife of words. 

" But the sense of it is undeniably found in the Scripture. For God 
hath in Scripture ordained prayer, reading or hearing, and the receiving 
the Lord's Supper, as the ordinary means of conveying his grace to 
man. 

"i^l 27, — I preached on ' Do this in remembrance of me.' 

" In the ancient Church, every one who was baj)tized communicated 
daily. So in the Acts we read, they ' all continued daily in the breaking 
of bread and in prayer.' 

" But in latter times, many have affirmed, that the Lord's Supper is 
not a convertmg, but a confirming ordinance. 

"And among us it has been dUigently taught, that none but those who 
are converted, who have received the Holy Ghost, who are believers in 
the full sense, ought to communicate. 

" But experience shows the gross falsehood of that assertion, that the 
Lord's Supper is not a converting ordmance. Ye are the witnesses. 
For many now present know, the very beginning of your conversion to 
God (perhaps, in some, the first deep conviction) was wrought at the 
Lord's Supper. Now, one single instance of this kind overthrows the 
whole assertion. 

" The falsehood of the other assertion appears both from the Scripture 
preceyjt and example. Our Lord commanded those very men who were 
then unconverted, who had not yet received the Holy Ghost, who (in the 
full sense of the Avord) were not believers, to do this ' in remembrance of 
him. Here the precept is clear. And to these he delivered the elements 
with his own hands. Here is example equally indisputable." 

^''Sat. 28. — I showed at large, 1. That the Lord's Supper was ordained 
by God, to be a means of conveying to men either preventing, or justify- 
ing, or sanctifying grace, according to their several necessities. 2. That 
the persons for whom it was ordained, are all those who know and feel 
that they v^ant the grace of God, either to restrain them from sin, or 
to show their sins forgiven, or to renew then souls in the image of God. 
3. That inasmuch as we come to his table, not to give him anything, but 
to receive whatsoever he sees best for us, there is no previous preparation 
indispensably necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever he pleases to 
give. And, 4. That no fitness is required at the time of communicating, 
but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness ; every one 
who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this as 
well as ail other ways of his appointment." 



The Church of Christ. 1041 

That this is the accepted and approved present doctrine of 
Methodism, I will read to you from a book I hold in my hand, 
recently published, and now circulated over the land, titled 
" Wesleyana," in which will be found all I have read from 
Wesley, and much more : 

^' And that this is also an ordinary, stated means of receiving the grace 
of God, is evident from those words of the apostle which occur in the pre- 
ceding chapter : " The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the com- 
munion [or communication] of the blood of Christ? The bread which 
we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" 1 Cor, x, 16. 
Is not the eating of that bread, and the drinking of that cup, the outward, 
visible means whereby God conveys into our souls all that spiritual grace, 
that righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost, which were pur- 
chased by the body of Christ once broken, and the blood of Christ once 
shed for us? Let all, therefore, who truly desire the grace of God, eat of 
that bread, and drink of that cup.'' — Sermons, vol. i, p. 142. 

' ' The grace of God given herein confirms to us the pardon of our sins, 
and enables us to leave them." * 

" If, therefore, we have any regard for the plain command of Christ, if 
we desire the pardon of our sins, if we wish for strength to believe, to love, 
and obey God, then we should neglect no opportunity of receiving the 
Lord's Supper ; then we must never turn our backs on the feast which our 
Lord has prepared for us. We must neglect no occasion which the good 
providence of God affords us for this purpose." — Wesleyana, p. 248, 249. 

The falsity of the assertion that Christ commanded all men 
to partake, is evident from the fact that he addressed the 
command to his disciples alone, and they constituted his church 
— they were baptized believers. Also of the language of Paul 
to the Corinthians. 80 perverted by Methodists and the ad- 
vocates of an open table. " Let a man examine himself and 
so let him eat." This was addressed to the church members, 
professed believers and the baptized, and not to the world — 
the un baptized or unconverted. 

I could multiply proofs for hours, but these will be sufficient 
to convince all fair minded persons that I do not misrepre- 
sent the teachings of the M. E. Church. Then all who are 
familiar with the practice of Methodist preachers know that 
nothing is more common all over the land than for Presiding 
Elders at their communion seasons to urge the unconverted to 
come and eat as a " means of grace," a means of securing 
converting grace and the pardon of sin. It will be folly for 
Eld. Ditzler to deny it, for the testimony of thousands will 
confirm the truth of what I eav. 

ay 

How can Baptists even of the loosest sort, how can Presby- 
terians commune with Methodists and thus recognize and ap- 
prove these teachings as Scriptural? The rite observed by 
them is not the Lord's Supper but a perversion of it, and 
Methodist Societies therefore have not this ordinance and 
lack this Scriptural characteristic — i. e. the Lord's Supper. — 
l_Fifteen minutes out 



1042 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S SEVENTH SPEECH. 



Gentlemen' Modeeators: — In this speech, we will review 
a few things in our Brother's speed], ere we review our points. 
The assei'tioiis of Baroiiius is utterly false, contradicted by ev- 
erv historian, shown to be untrue bv everv one of the orio:inal 
historians of the churcli who were of the fourth, fifth and sixth 
centuries — Eusebius, Theodoset, Socrates, Sozomau, Eua- 
grius Philostergius; — by a literature of those centuries, con- 
tradicted and proven false hj his i^wn witness, Giesler. 

As to a full-blown Pope, that never was reached in any 
of the centuries when he says the papacy was established, nor 
till A. D. 1073, when Hildebrand became Gregory VII, and 
lie left it unperfected. He was the first who restricted the 
word pope to the Bishop of liome. All aged proselj^tes and 
bishops were till then called pope — that is pa^a — father. 
When he makes Watson say baptism is the means by which 
we become Abraham's children, he makes him say what he 
never said, never thought of It is like the host of cases 
wherein we have exposed him. He seems to make member- 
ship consist solely in the local congregation. If it does, then all 
members thereof, wicked and all, are members of God's church. 
You are compelled to keep up the distinction we have made 
plain and proved over and again. In Christ's Spiritual 
Church is lodged and held our real membership, and the local 
relation is but the expression of it. 

He again pretends to quote Wesley. Dr. Graves has already 
put it beyond his power to hurt Wesley or us by his quota- 
tions and inferences where none such could be made. He 
knows Weslev never wrote it, that he savs he did not. His 
biographer says he did not. Our bishops have published that 
he did not. It never was published by us. Has not been pub- 
lished by the M. E. Church for just forty years. It contradicts 
all our standards and Discipline. These facts would satisfy 
any man but such as Dr. Graves. He tells us Rome brought in 
Infant baptism. We have Orchard declaring that Rome did not 
practice it till long after A. D. 300, whereas TertuUian op- 
poses it in ^orth Africa one hundred and ten years before this, 
and fifty years before this the sixty-six bishops then make their 
unanimous decision that it is not necessary to wait till the in- 
fant is eight days old, to baptize it. So you niay settle the 



The Church of Christ. 1043 

contradiction with your own author. As to onr delaying bap- 
tism, we gave cases w^here Baptists in Missouri dehiyed it 
eighteen years ! We promptly baptize as a rule ; but there is 
no more need of haste in it than in any other dutv — the Lord's 
Supper, etc. 

He predicts Presiding Elders will go down. If our cause 
so requires, all right. Close communion is going down — not 
will do so — it is doing so. 

We have met all his little points. They had nothing to do 
with the merits of the question whatever. 

We again arrest your attention to our pains in relying on 
facts, in the Bible, and when treating of the Baptist church, 
we took only their recognized standards and allowed them to 
explain their own principles. We have all the time allowed 
Dr. Graves to explain and expound Baptist principles for the 
parties he represents, , On the contrary he has assumed the 
right to garble our authorities, distort our language when even 
correctly reporting it, and he has spread a drag-net far and 
wide and raked the whole slimy depths to see what he could 
drag up and use as an exhibition of chagrin and spite against 
our church. Sad and mortifying has been his failure. 

We now revievv" our Scriptural arguments in brief and in 
part only. We started out with the Oneness of the Church in 
all ages. We come to the question — 
Where then is the Principle of Identity in God's Chrch ? 

1. It is not sameness of the form of worship ; for these va- 
ried in all ages, and during all dispensations. Abel's, Enoch's, 
Noah's day — Abraham's Moses' John Baptist's Christ's. 

2. ISTot in sameness of ordinances or ceremonials — 2000 
years more. Then 400 years, only circumcision. Then it 
suspended 40 years. Josh, v. 1-8. Other ordinances intro- 
duced — Lev. viii, xiv., xv., xvi., etc. 

3. IN'ot in identity of ministers, etc.. Patriarchal — Mosaic 
— a double Ministry- — so in Christ's day. 

4. N'ot in sameness of the people, as Jew, Gentile, bond, 
free are to come again. 

5. It must, then, be in its principles and design. These 
have ALWAYS been one. Hence, Heb. x. 38, 39; xi entire; xii. 
1-22; Eph. iii. 15. I Cor. x, 3, 4 : I Pet. i. 9, 10, 11; John i. 
12, 13, 17, 18 ; Gal. iii. 6-9 ; Eom. xi. ; iv. 3-11. Deut. vi. 4, 
5 ; Mark xii. 28-34; Matt, vii. 16, sq.. Matt. xxi. 33 33 ; John, 
X. 1-16; XV. 1-9; Rom. iv, 4-9; Gen, xv. 5, 6; Eph. ii. 10; 
Ps. li, 1-10 ; Eph. v. 25, 26 ; Titus iii, 5-7' ; Is, i. 16, 18 ; 
iv. 4, 11 ; iv. 3 ; Ezk. xxxvi. 25, 26 ; Rom. ii. 28, 29 ; Rom. iv. 
3.13. 

For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly ; neither is that circmnci- 



1044 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

sion, which is outrrard in the flesh ; but he is a Jew, which is one inward- 
ly ; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the let- 
ter ; whose praise is not of men, but of God. — Rom. ii. 2S. 29. 

For what saith the Script are? Abraham beheved God, and it was count- 
ed unto him for righteousness. Xow to him that worketh is tlie reward 
not reckoned of grace but of debt. But to him that worketh not. btit be- 
lieveth on him that justilieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righte- 
ousness. Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto 
whom God imptiteth righteousness without workSj Saying, Blessed are 
they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed 
is the man to whom the Lord ^\ill not impute sin, Cometh tliis blessedness 
then upon the cu-cumcision only, or upon the tmchcumcision also ? for 
we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness. How was 
it then reckoned ? when he was in circumcision, or in uncircuracision f 
Not in circtimcision, but in uncircumcision. And he received the sig-n of 
circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith .which he had yet 
being tmcircumcised : that he might be the father of all them that believe, 
though they be not circumcised ; that righteousness might be imputed 
unto them also : and the father of circimicision to them who are not of 
the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our 
father Abraham, which he had being vet unckeumcised. 

For the promise, that he should be the heh' of the worlds was not to 
Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteotisness 
of faith. — Rom. iv. 3-13. 

Xote here, we are pardoned as Abraham was. as David was, 
follow in the steps of Abraham. 

6. AVhat, then, were the essential principles that reigned 
through all dispensations, and constituted the unity, the eter- 
nal oneness of the church. Only the essential conditions of per- 
sonal salvation. ^Nothing else was a condition. The cleans- 
ii.g effleacy of Christ's blood applied by faith through the 
Holv Spirit constituted tliis. Gen. vi. 3. 5: xv. 6: Eom. iv. 
3-5;' Is. liii. p, 5. 6, 10: Ps. li. 2. 7, 10: Is. i. 16, 18 : iv. 4; 
xliv. 3 : Heb. xi. and former references. I Tim. i. 5 : I Pet. i. 
9 : Rev. xiii. 10 : xiv. 17, IS. 

Love works no ill to his neighbor : therefore love is the fttlfihing of the 
hiw,'' — Rom. xiii. 10. 

For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink ; but righteousness and 
peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he that in these things serveth 
Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. — Rom, xiv. 17, 1- . 

Xow the end of the commandment is charity out of a pin-e heart, and 
of a good conscience, and of faith unfeigned :— I Tim. i. 5. Receiving the 
end of yoin- faith, even the salvation of your souls. — I Pet. i. 9. 

7. The Jvlethodist Episcopal Church South, and Xorth, al- 
ways has, and does now teach the&e principles, observes the 
ordinances of the church, has every essential and even parti- 
ally non-essential, constituent, principle and fact, going to 
constitute the church of God from any stand- point, and has 
the endorsement of all original Baptist writers, and founders 
of their church. 

8. The nnity of the church then is reduced to this : They 
are one in Christ. Eph. iv. 13-16: John xv. 1-7; xvii. 21-23; 
X. 7, 16. Thev are one br.ead. and one bodv : I. Cor. x. 17— 
all who have partaken by faith of Him. 



The Church of Christ. 1045 

9. W"e see then that the church is one — a Spiritual family. 
Any number of such people of God may organize themselves 
together under the laws of God at any time, and do there and 
then constitute a Scriptural church of Jesus Christ.. Such a 
course the members atCarrollton took, and are a representa- 
tive of Methodism. Thus our Proposition was established, 
and more besides. We had no need to do half we did to do 
so, but we wish the true idea of religion and church to be fixed 
in the minds of ail. 

We next showed that the Baptist idea of church and church 
government was not in the Bible. They are congregational. 
Each church an independent institution, making its own laws 
calling its own pastors, and not responsible to any part of the 
church but themselves, however much they may sutler from 
the evil doings, scandalous conduct, or persecutions of its 
members. This is not Republican — not Democratic. It is not 
a government of laws with well established checks, balances, 
right of appeal, etc. It is pure, unadulterated mobocrac}^ — the 
iron will ot an unchecked majority whose rights to oppress 
or override minorities are their own passions and head-strong 
wills. 

We called for Scripture proof of this independent order 
of church government in the Scriptures. As Dr. Graves has 
harped on these matters for years, he certainly could say for 
its defense what ever can be said. But not a text has he 
adduced to prove a point. He has attempted to show the 
organization of a church — so important a matter, yet not 
quoted one single I'me of Scripture to prove it! ! Have I not 
given text after text, reading large paragraphs of Scripture, 
analyzing them, and giving scores of references to others of a 
like kind, while he deals in bold assertions and scrap litera- 
ture. 

1. We turned to the Bible, and found no Congregationalism 
in the church in the Old Testament. 

2. In John's day there was nothing of the kind. I^ay, not 
even a church, in the Doctor's estimation. 

3. We looked at it in Christ's day, and not a sign of it 
appeared, but the church was "One fold" — "One," not multi- 
tudes. This "one fold," could exist in hundreds of congrega- 
tions or churches, but not as independent and law making 
bodies, but all one. Christ as Head in such a way as that if 
ONE suffers, ALL suffer with him, and were "all members one 
OF another" — one building, one household, and so under the 
same government. Rom. xii. 4, 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12-14; x. 17; 
Eph. i. 22, 23; John xv. 1-6 : x. 1-16. 

We asked him to show where Christ organized (1) a church— 



1046 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

a new church (2) where he organized separate congrega- 
tions, officering them, etc ? He did not pretend to try to 
show it. 

4. We turned to Apostolic records and found that in Acts 
i. the Apostles and one hundred and twenty disciples (v. 15) 
elected one in place of Judas. JS'ow these were eleven 
preachers representing no one single congregation, but the 
whole church. So the one hundred and twenty disciples be- 
longed to no one congregation, but disciples from various 
places there present, and as a whole they act. 

Acts vi. 1-6, presents a case of church action again. It was 
by "the multitude of the disciples" and the Apostles. When 
a proposition "pleased the whole multitude" of those, "the 
twelve called," "they chose Stephen," etc. 

Acts viii. 14. We learn that " the Apostles which were at 
Jerusalem" sent Peter and John to take charge of what the 
deacon Philip had done in Samaria. By congregational rules 
this could not be done. When Peter went to the Gentiles (Acts 
X.), " the Apostles and brethren that were in Judea," took the 
matter in hand, " contended with him, xi. 1, 2, and settled on 
their policy, verse 18. Here we see again just the reverse of 
Baptist principles. The brethren " in Judea" — the whole body 
of believers, maintained the right to determine this question, 
not the local cono^re station estabhshed in Cornelius' house. 
In Acts XV. 2, " the Apostles and Elders" at Jerusalem settle 
the great question raised, though it was for distant churches. 
Here there is the reverse of all Congregationalism. These 
facts, in the light of the fact that Congregationalism never had 
existed, settle the questioti. Hence the words of Paul, Acts 
XX. 27-29 — " Take heed to yourselves, and to all the flock, over 
which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers" — Bishops 
— " to feed the church of God," etc. Here they act over 
the whole church, not a single congregation. 

We showed the force of Christ's rule — " by their fruits ye 
shall know them!" We gave a history of the condition of 
Europe when Methodism rose, as well as of the American 
Colonies. 

What w^ere the doctrines preached then by Baptists ? Old 
time, iron-clad Calvinism of the most terrible character ; for, 
unlike other Calvinistic bodies, whose learning and prudence 
greatly modified the system, the Baptists — "Particular" — 
went the whole length — hesitated not, but followed it into all 
its logical consequences, and preached infant damnation with a 
holy delight, while it was declared by them that it prejudiced 
the case tor the sinner to do anything in the way of repenting 
and seeking salvation ! They made man as passive in regen- 



The Church of Christ. 1047 

eration, and the use of the means thereto, as a piece of iron. 

While this was the order of the day, let us hear the posi- 
tion of Watson, our standard Theologian — Institutes, p. 391 — 
2 Part, ii. ch. xviii. He tells us in Paul's language, " the 
FREE GIFT Came UPON ALL men unto justification of life." 
Capitals his. Hence he says, '"^all children, dying in infancy, 
must partake of it." The free gift is " the full reversal of the 
penalty of death," and " as fully within the reach of infants 
dying in infancy, as within the reach of adults liying to years 
of choice." "It is by rejecting it that adults perish." 
Fletcher and Wesley are equally clear and distinct, but we 
need not quote more, when all honestly inclined people in the 
land know what we preach. 

We saw what was the paralyzing effect of such miserable 
preaching. Dearth was in all the land. The other wing of their 
church preached the completest Arianism, Socinianism, and 
mutual hate and anger distinguished both sects. B ut for the civil 
law restraining they would have devoured each other in Eng- 
land. Being feeble they were compelled to keep the peace. 
Benedict, Backus, Cramp, their historians — sweeping from 
to-day back to 1771 — for Backus began to write it then, and 
worked at it thirty years — give us a doleful picture of their 
success. 

This is a doleful picture for the Church. Now you claim 
1,500,000 members. Your historians — Jeter, Benedict, and 
Cramp, all give us the credit of this impulse. By their fruits 
ye shall know them. Here are some or our fruits. We not 
only number two adult members to your one, but all your 
gain you owe to us. *' By their fruits ye shall know them !" 
Is that so? i^ow by the speed Baptists were making in the 
one hundred years they had, to-day they would have numbered 
some six thousand (6,000). We would thus have five hun- 
(:red and eighty-three members (adults) to every single mem- 
ber in their church ! And this is the saucy little creature we 
found stuck fast in the quicksands, mired down in doubt and 
the endless mazes of oriental mysticisms, and with a strong 
and generous hand, lifted you out, taught you to rig your sails, 
throw overboard a world of worse than useless rubbish and 
debris, and start again with propitious skies and favoring 
gales. But the coolness of the situation is, we found you 
shivering, freezing, dying, and kindled a great fire about you 
and when wai^med into life, you turn and say — why it was no 
fire ! and you strike for the lakes again. 

The grand, new^ly-rigged Methodist ship, with a shouting, 
singing crew, a full armor, and manned for every conflict, 
came grandly over the waters, dashing the billows off with a 



1048 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

power and grace that made all hearts leap with just pride and 
satisfaction, when suddenly she came upon the Baptist ship, 
all dingy, shivei-ed, leaking, and wallowing in the waves, every 
pump agoing to keep afloat, and absolutely in the hands of a 
gang of pirates — held fast between the semi-infidelity of Ari- 
anisni on one hand, and the cold, lifeless Mohammedan latal- 
ism on the other. A few broadsides from, our Man-of-war 
sent the captors to their dens, released the craft, took her into 
docks, had her repaired, kept out of water long enough to 
get dry und well cleared, when, no sooner does she start out 
than she squeaks out, " You are no ship — you are only a 
skifi* — a society!!" 

Ah, sirs, we are glad we had this question up, after all. If 
this conflict, invoked by the Baptists of the South and West, 
is to go on, it will be short and decisive. It will not last long, 
we assure you. In the vulgar language of the world, we 
have the dead wood on you. It is too late in the day to 
bring on such a conflict. We had become excessively peace- 
ful. Our people had been playing a most contemptibly pusi- 
la-nimous part in some places, we are forced to admit. There 
are many Methodists who would take their children to your 
chu relies, and sit and be outraged, vilified, misrepresented, 
traduced, and showing the brains of an oyster and the moral 
courage of a snail. They would plead with our people — oh, 
for the Lord's sake, don't preach oh these subjects — it will 
produce •' hard feelin's." My great-grand-aunt's great-grand- 
nephew married the great-grand-neice of a Baptist and we 
don't want any "feelin's" hurt! Gentlemen, that game is 
played out ! ! That day is past. Those old idiots have to 
take a back seat for a while. And we are laro^elv indebted to 
you, Doctor, and those of your kind, for this. Forbearance 
ceases to be a virture sometimes, even in old dotards and 
Rip Van Winkles. " Patroclus' wounds have raised his 
drowsy powers." Sir, we have cleard our vessel for action. 
Our columbiads are on pivot and range taken. We mean 
business. We will have peace. Yes, sir, conquer a peace. 
We can — we will sweep the seas and clear the land of such 
attacks. Dr. G-raves has talked of persecutions. Why you 
never knew what persecution was in comparison with what 
Presbyterians have suflered, what Independents suffered in 
the dark times of the seventeenth century in En Hand and 
Scotland and Switzerland in the sixteenth century. You 
know nothing of what it was as compared to that of the Hol- 
landers in the same seventeenth century and sixteenth. You 
were rather the pets of Romanism, because they knew if the 
Lutherans, Presbyterians and Independents were crushed, all 



The Church of Christ. 



1049 



the Baptists and Anabaptists of the world would not make a 
good breakfast spell. Thej tickled and played with you as a 
mischievous cat does a mouse she has at her command. She 
wished to use you. She saw you were susceptible. She in- 
flated your vanity, pandered to your liking, that she might 
use you as a means of dissention among Protestants, so as to 
bring it into all the disgrace possible, by civil wars, excesses 
and every form of fanaticism. Hence she loves to tell, as 
she does constantly — that the Bible taught Munzer murder, 
Stork, and his companions, as Anabaptists, to have a commu- 
nity of wives. She gloats over such things as a means of dis- 
gracing Protestantism. But my time is nearly out — I must 
close. 

Methodism revived Christianity. Lt saved Protestantism at 
the last gasp. We appealed to the Bible, and proved that we 
are a Scriptural church. We appealed to its principles — we 
proved they sustained us. We tested the question by the rule 
Christ gave us, and we found it more than vindicated our 
claim. As to the Baptists, it is only on general principles we 
can allow that they are a church. They are a church irregu- 
lar, not Scriptural in form, nor in all doctrine, nor in all lead- 
ing practices, but pass muster on a platform of general prin- 
ciples — just as a whole. 

Members of the Carrollton church— "ye are a chosen gene- 
ration" — whose duty it is to vindicate your title to the exalted 
honor of being Methodists. Let the purest principles of our 
holy Christianity live in your hearts, bear fruit in your lives, 
and amid ail the proscriptions that intolerance can put upon 
you, the insults it may offer you, or aspersions it may cast 
upon 3^011, you will ever enjoy an enlarged prosperity and at 
last be welcomed from the Church militant to the church tri- 
umphant! — ^Timeout 



1050 • The Greai Cakrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SEVENTH CLOSING REPLY 



Mr. President : — I have made an honest endeavor to dis- 
cuss this proposition, and not to jield to the powerful tempta- 
tion urged upon me, to leave it to discuss the claim of 
Baptist Churches to an unbroken succession, which has nothing 
to do with the question whether the local M. E. Societj^ here in 
Carrollton possesses the Scriptural characteristics of a church 
of Christ, or a branch of the same. As he has spent so much 
time upon this question, I will say this: It is one of the 
deepest convictions of my faith, that essential continuity is 
one of the Scriptural characteristics of the Kingdom of Christ, 
which I understand embraces all his true, visible churches on 
earth, and I will now sum up and place before you all I have 
intimated upon this point, freed from the distortions and false 
colorings my opponent has placed upon them. 

I believe that the Word of God clearly teaches that from the 
time the visible kingdom of Christ was established on this 
earth, and it must have been subsequent to Daniel's prophecy, 
(see Dan. ii. 44), it must have been after the rise of the Grecian, 
and in the time of the Roman kingdom — it was " never to be 
broken in pieces," destroyed or "given to another people" 
than the '• saints," but was to " stand forever." It matters not 
whether we can trace its unbroken continuity every day or 
year or century — 3^et the Word of God standeth forever. The 
Church of Christ must have a history. Christ declared that 
hebuilded, founded, called into existence his own church, and 
the gates of hell were not to prevail against it — it was not to be 
annihilated by the sword nor destroyed by the corruptions of 
Satan. If Christ's words be true, His Church has had a con- 
tinuous existence from His day until our own, and if His 
words are not true He is not the Christ of God, and we have 
no Savior. The question then is not so much whether we 
can trace the history of His Chuich for every month or year 
or century, but whether He uttered a truth or a falsehood, 
whether the book we call the Bible be true, whether we have 
a Savior. Paul, addressing the Hebrews said, " We therefore 
receiving — i. e., having received a Kingdom which cannot be 
moved.^' This was the visible organization which Christ had 
called into existence, and it was not to be moved from the 
face of the earth any more than it was to be shaken down 



The Church of Christ. 105 i 

and blotted out. It does not devolve upon me nor any other 
friend of Christ to traoe out the history of this kingdom, da^^ 
by day, from Paul's time until now, to satisfy the skepticism 
of any, whether called Baptists, or Pedohaptists, but it is our 
duty to vindicate the word of our Master and honor it by our 
unshaken faith in his statement. That statement I believe as 
firmly as I believe that Jesus of Nazereth is the Son of God. 

The ]N"ew Testament is the rule of our faith and will be of 
the Church of the redeemed until He comes, and He has said 
"from the days of John the Baptist until no?/? — "to-day" — the 
kingdom of Heaven suffereth [z. e., will suffer] violence, and 
the violent Avill seek to overpower and rend it in pieces" — vio- 
lently assail it, and this coald not be true unless Christ has 
had a visible kingdom from the days of John the Baptist until 
now, to be assaulted, not only by fire and sword, but assailed 
as it is by my opponent, and all men sought to be turned away 
from it, into kingdoms set up by men in opposition to it. 

Christ made a last revelation of himself to John on Patmos, 
and of things that were to transpire on the earth, in connec- 
tion with, and to affect his churches in all the ages until he 
should return to earth to judge the nations, and to develop his 
church into universal dominion. The entire Book of Reve- 
lation is symbolical. The Seven Churches of Asia are as cer- 
tainly symbolical as are all other things in the book denoted 
by "seven." Each "church" was the symbol of the history 
of the living churches during a specific period, and the seven, 
symbolized the entire history of Christ's true Churches until 
he stands " at the door and knocks." This last revelation 
therefore teaches that Christ has organized churches, and 
duly qualified ministers upon this earth from the days of 
John, the beloved Disciple until now, and he will have until 
the advent. The historic question lies between the Greek 
Catholic Church, and the Baptist denomination, and not be- 
tween us and any existing Protestant Society, and much less 
between us and Methodism, which is but of yesterday — for no 
Protestant body claims an existence prior to the 3'ear 1500, ex- 
cept as they existed in the fruitful womb of the mother of Har- 
lots. The Church of England claims a succession prior to Henry 
Vni. through the Latin, and thence through the Greek Catholic 
Church. But Methodism has no " ecclesiastical history." She is 
simply a " scheme of religious activity," " a human institution," 
in the language of her own writers ; at first very similar to the 
" Young Men's Christian Associations of America" — to pro- 
mote the spread of religion. If this last-named Association 
should, at its next Annual Convention, assume to itself the 
title of The Christian Church, and in fact as it is claimed for 



1052 The Great Carrollton Dzbate. 

it in a receut number of its Review, its claim would be as valid 
as is that of Methodism to be so considered and recognized, for, 
until 1784, Methodists were only " Societies," and were con- 
stituted into a " Church," by the Superintendent simply writ- 
ing it so, and writing himself a Bishop. 

The first argument I have urged to prove the negative of 
the question is : 

I. They were not originated to be churches, nor are they recognized a« 
such by the Bishops nor the Book of Discipline. 

(1.) That the first Society hkethis ever formed by John Wesley he called 
a "Society," and not a church, and all others he ever formed hke it in 
England and America, he called Societies. 

(2.) Coke and Asbury and all the first Methodist leaders in America 
called them Societies. 

(3.) All the Bishops North and South, in their pastoral addresses for 
ninety-two years past have called them Societies. 

(4.) The "Discipline denominates each one a Society, and no one of them 
a church. 

(5.) There is not a Bishop nor a traveling preacher in the Methodist 
Society, who has membership in any one of them ! 

(6.) The "General Rules" by which the members are governed, de- 
nominate them "Societies." 

(7.) No one of them, nor all of them together can do what the Disci- 
pline declares each particular church can do, i. e., change or abolish 
rites and ceremonies — see Art. xxv. 

If the question is not settled by this argument and i^roof, then we are 
ignorant of the force of proof and facts. 

II. This Society and tJie whole scheme or system of Methodism was in- 
vented, devised, originated by two unregenerated men — who did not pro- 
fess to pattern it after the Divine model found in the New Testament. 

It is therefore, in the language of a distirguished Methodist author, 
merely "a human institution" and entitled to no more reverence or respect 
than any other mere human organization, as a Masonic Lodge or a Tem- 
perance Society, and therefore, those who join it do not join a church of 
Christ or a branch of the same, any more than he would by joining one of 
those human Societies. But the Church of Christ is of God and not of 
man, is from heaven and not of earth — was originated and set up by Jesu» 
Christ himself when on earth— and not by apostle nor prophet, and much 
less by imregenerate men. The church which Christ left at Jerusalem 
was the appointed model' of all future churches that have a right to assume 
the name of Cliurch of Christ. 

I have shown that for man, however pious, to originate and set up an 
(M-ganization radically different and to preach it for a Scriptural Church, 
and influence the people to enter it under the delusion that they are enter- 
ing the Church of Christ, is an act of rebellion— high treason against th« 
King of Zion. 

III. The M. E. local Society in this place lacks another essential and 
vital characteristic of a Church of Christ, it has an unscriptural membership. 

The only condition required of any one by the Book of Discipline i« 
simply a desire to be saved while it receives and introduces the infants 
of all classes by baptism into its membership, and thus in one generation 
could it prevail the entire population of the nation would be gathered intio 
it. So that if it is indeed a church it would not only annihilate by absorp- 
tion aU other denominations, but make the church co- extensive with the 
nation. 

A scriptural church receives no one except upon a personal profession 
of faith in Christ and regeneration of heart, and hence is a spiritual body, 



The Church of Christ. 1053 

and in this respect answering to the definition of the Discipline, *'a con- 
gregation of FAITHFUL MEK," those Called to be saints — "the saved." 

A Society that by organic law admits the unregenerate equally with 
the believer, the infant equally with the adult, lacks an essential charac- 
teristic of a Scriptm^al Church. 

IV. The local Methodist Episcopal Society in this place, and similar 
ones in every other, are Without Scriptural baptism, and therefore can in 
no sense be considered a Scriptural church. There are some things touch- 
ing which all professed Christian churches and writers are agreed, and 
this is one of them, i. e., without Scriptural baptism there can be no Scrip- 
tural Church. I have demonstrated that the act or acts performed by 
Methodist ministers for Christian baptism are not such, because— 

(1). They have not the Scriptural authority to baptize anybody, and, 
therefore, their acts are null and void. The officers of a Masonic Lodge, 
or of any human institution, as the Young Mens' Christian Association, 
liave no authority to administer church ordinances because the bodies of 
which they are members are not churches. Methodist Societies are hu- 
man organizations and have no more authority to administer Church or- 
dinances, than these non-ecclesiastical institutions ; and 

(2). Their sprinklings, and pourings, and more often mois.enings, are 
not the act Christ himself observed, specified and commanded, nor can 
all the authority of a thousand human societies, nor ten thousand mem- 
bers, and Bishops of such, substitute these for the immersion Christ com- 
manded. Those who have received only such are unbaptized as certainly 
as God's Word is true — and 

(3). The design and end for which the Society here or the Methodist 
Episcopal organization of America administers the rite it calls baptism, 
is not merely unscriptural but pernicious, and imperils the souls of those 
who receive it. 

I have shown beyond possible cavil or contradiction, that '^baptism" 
BO called, is admhiistered by all Methodist ministers as a * 'Sacrament," a 
means of saving grace, in the ordinary way the appointed means of regen- 
eration — so that without it in the ordinary way infants even cannot be 
saved unless baptized. So palpable is this doctrine that my opponent 
has not attempted to show that I have misquoted or misconstrued the 
language of either his Discipline, of Wesley or of his standard authors. How 
could he. When Bishop Cummins, followed by a body of Episcopal 
ministers seceded from the Episcopal Church because this doctrine confess- 
edly characterizes its Ritual ? Yet the Ritual of Methodist Societies is 
but a copy of that Episcopal Ritual. This doctrine of the Discipline and 
the Methodist standards is to-day troubling the consciences of hundreds 
of the more conscientious of her ministers, and will trouble more and 
more until it is expurgated. This then being the design of baptism as 
taught by the Society, though the act be immersion, it is and can in no 
sense be considered Christian baptism. 

The M. E. Society in this place does not and cannot administer the 
Lord's Supper, since it has 1. No authority to do so more than a Ma- 
sx)nic Lodge has, because a human society, and, 2. Because it admin- 
isters bread and wine, which it calls the Lord's Supper, as the Romanists 
do, for a sacrament — a means of grace, of conversion, of the pardon of sin, 
and salvation. This hs not only utterly to pervert, but it is to subvert and 
utterly destroy the in&titution. And again, it administers the rite to the 
professedly ungodly and unconverted, to convert them , and to the un- 
baptized, contrary to the order of the Word of God. 

We must, if we credit the words of Christ, look upon the ordinances as 
administered by Methodist Societies, as null and vain service, for He hath 
said " in vain do ye worship me," observing or wiUing to observe for doc- 
trine the commandments <3f men. 



1054 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

VI. My sixth argument mainly embodies my two last, the doctrines of 
the M. E. Society are unscriptural and subversive of the Scripture and of 
Chris.tianity. 

I have developed its teachings in connection vi^ith the ordinances, and 
to these I add another doctrine, that man's justification in thesight of God 
and salvation is dependent upon his own works of righteousness, and 
that this failing, the regenerated and adopted child of God will be cast 
off forever. This last will be discussed under the last proposition, and 
I leave it until then. 

VII. My seventh argument was that the M, E. Society here and else- 
where is not organized and built according to the divine model given us 
in the New Testament, but in direct contravention of it, and the teachings 
of Christ. 

I showed how the Apostolic churches were organized—in no sense as 
legislative but as executive democracies,— the whole body of the quahfied 
membership having an equal voice — the ministers only the equals of 
each other. 

And then by Methodist standards I showed that Methodism was a 
"Great Iron Wheel," a hierarchy — -a ministerial despotism — and in the 
language of Bishop Bascom not only an " oppressive, despotic and irre- 
sponsible government, but one that libels the very genius of Christianity.' 
Let it be remembered that this is the language of a man who was made 
a Bishop. 

And now, Mr. President, you have heard his concluding 
speech upon this question. He has of course stated all his 
strongest points, as he has made his most fervid exhortation. 
You and all of us can see all that he has even claimed to do. 
Has he, as was incumbent upon him as a logical debater, 
shown what the characteristics of a Scriptural Church of 
Christ are, and then proved that the local M. E. Society here 
possessed these characteristics? ^ot a word of it! Has he 
in answer to my request a full score of times repeated, and 
to my reasonable demands, defined a visible Church of Christ, 
an organization that has laws and ordinances whose locality is 
on this earth? Who will say he has? JS'o one. Though 
called upon most respectfully and most urgently for five days 
past to know if he will endorse the definition of "Church" given 
in the XHI. Art. of his own Discipline, has he answered yes? 
If any man or woman in this audience has heard him, will 
you raise your hand ? . . ^o one has heard him ! 

!N"ow I put this question to you all, would it not have been 
more becoming in him, who stands here as the professed and 
endorsed champion and defender of Methodism to have fairly, 
manfully and honorably, answered this question and 
accepted the defence of his Societ}^ and Discipline than to 
have spent his time attempting to pick some daw in one of 
the links of the chain of Baptist Church Succession, a matter 
that has no more to do with this question than the question 
whether there be or not a northwest passage ? Though it has 
been sought for three hundred years in vain, it has not been 
proven that there is none but as every new explorer has pene- 



The Church of Christ. 1055 

trated farther than the last, so it has been with Baptist his- 
tory — the more thoroughly it is studied the clearer their 
claims — but one thing is manifest, Baptist Churches ante- 
date any other exi ting religious organizations, and if they 
have not stood continuously since the ascension of Christ, 
thf^n no Christian Churches have been on earth during all 
this period — but, another thing follows, if Christ has had wit- 
nessing Churches during all these ages, as he declared he 
would have, then Baptist Churches are those bodies — and to 
my mind the intensit}', persistency and malignity with which 
Baptists are opposed and hated, and their distinctive princi- 
ples have been and still are assailed by botii Cistholics and 
Protestants, as they were by Judaiziiig and Ritualizing teach- 
ers in the days of the Apostles, is to my mind an additional 
and a convincing proof of their claims. 

But I was saying, I have presented seven honest objections 
to the claims of his S(^ciety, which I deem fundamental, and 
unanswered, must be considered as fatal to his cause, and has 
he met them, has he attempted to meet them? Has he even 
noticed them ? Is not this strans^e? Would it not have been 
more becoming in him to have done so, and more satisfactory 
to his friends, tlian the chatty aud ad captandum exhortations 
with which he has regaled their partizan pride? But if he can 
afford thus to sacrifice himself and his cause, I should not 
complain. But here I put it on record, that he has from the 
beginning, persistently refused to discuss this question as he did 
the two last. I have had no disputant for the past six days. 
When a man refuses to define his terms, he ceases to be a dis- 
putant, and becomes a icrangler^ Were I to re-discuss this 
question with him, I should appeal to the Rules, and refuse to 
occupy a moment's time until he had defined his terms; and I 
advise all who follow me to do so. But I will now tell you 
why he would not define a visible church. I will tell you 
why he has refused to endorse the definition laid down in his 
Discipline. He knew itioould be instant death to him to do so. 

There is not a definition of a Christian Church given by 
2iX\j Dictionary or by any protestant denomination of earth, 
that would include the Methodist Episcopal local Society of 
CarroUton. It is, indeed, as says Inskip, unique, sid generis^ 
unlike every other religious organization on earth, like itself 
alone. If it is a Christian Church, no other religious bodies 
on earth are, or can be, and to direct your eyes away from it 
he has talked to you about the "invisible church' of theolo- 
gians, a mere idealistic conception, but existing neither in 
Heaven nor on earth — nowhere except in the imaginations of 
men, and thus he has mocked the patience of the thoughtful, 



1056 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and egregiously imposed upon the ignorance and credulity of 
his own brotherhood. And I will tell you why he has not 
told you, if he or any traveling preacher or Bishop has his 
membership in a local society like this here in Carrollton. 
If he should answer yes, he knew the Discipline would dis- 
prove his assertion and every living Methodist would know he 
answered falsely. If he answered no — then he would be con- 
fessing before this audience that he did not belong to a Chris- 
tian church of any sort on earth ! ! Then the question would 
come up in the minds of Methodists here, and ever^^where, 
who read this discussion : If the Methodist Episcopal local 
societies are indeed churches, how is it that a minister never 
was and never can be a member of them ? But if the annual 
conference, the preachers' church, is indeed the Church, then 
why not let the laity have membership with them in it ? 

But I have shown by the decisions of the Supreme Court, 
that the only church of any sort and in connection with Meth- 
odism, is not the local Society, not a Quarterly, District, or 
Annual Conference, but the General Conference, which has an 
existence only two or three weeks at a time, once in four years, 
and in which no bishop, presidingelder, minister nor lay mem- 
ber — no Methodist in America has membership ! and thus by 
the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, 
which decision was accepted and endorsed by the Methodist 
Episcopal Church South, the local Methodist Episcopal So- 
ciety here in Carrollton is not a church nor a branch of a 
Church of Jesus Christ. 

But I must close. Those of you who can believe my oppo- 
nent when he affirms that Cardinal Baronius, a 5^(7??(/rtrc/ histo- 
rian of the Catholic church, falsified the facts of history, when 
he gave the very text of the letters of Bishop Gregory, both 
to Bishop John of Constantinople and the Emperor, — I can 
only pity your credulity. I will record my testimony that an 
opponent more reckless in his statements I never encountered. 
I am simply astonished beyond expression. One thing is set- 
tled that has been so universally denied all over this land. 
The Doctrinal Tracts did, when " The Great Iron Wheel" was 
written, contain all those extracts on baptismal regeneration 
that I quoted from it, and that that very identical treatise on 
Baptism is in Wesley's words, and is endorsed by the Metho 
dists of both continents. 



THE 

^REAT CARROLLTON DEBATE. 

FIFTH PROPOSITION. 

BELIEVERS IN ChRIST ARE THE ONLY SUBJECTS ChRIST COM- 
MANDED HIS APOSTLES TO BAPTIZE. 

- DR. GRAVES Affirms. 
DR. DITZLER Denies. 

[Dr. Graves' Opening Speech.] 

Mr. President : — This proposition was persistently urged 
upon Eld. Ditzler's committee to accept, and they as persist- 
ently refused to do so. Through my paper I challenged Eld, 
Ditzler to discuss it as it stands, one day, and he promptly 
accepted. I desired, for once in my life, to engage in a limited 
discussion upon this subject, one that should be confined ^'to 
the only law we have to baptize anybody," the commission 
of the only law-giver inZion as recorded by the Holy Spirit by 
the hands of Matthew and Mark. I wanted the reading world to 
read one discussion that would not only be limited to the I^ew 
Testament record, but to one verse of that record, the one that 
contains the words of the law, for with these, and these only, 
we have to do. 

In all previous discussions, known to me, as in the discus- 
sion of this-, during this debate, in different verbiage, days have 
been spent in the dim and shadowy dispensation of the past, 
in the vain attempt to explore some ground that would bear 
an inference or support an analogy, until the people, the only 
persons for whom this discussion is held, lost in the entangle- 
ments of the Old Jewish Economy became confused, wearied 
and disgusted and turn away not only without information, 
but with their sectarian prejudices confirmed. The discussion 
of this question admits of no reference to the Old Testament. 
Inferences and analogies and probabilities have no place here, 



1058 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

but, what saith the Lord Jesus in the few lines of the law of 
baptism ? It is a question of definition, oi terms, of the principles 
of grammar — in a word, of the literal interpretation of the laic. 
The sole question is, what did Jesus say — whom did He com- 

MAND lIlS APOSTLES TO BAPTIZE ? 

Mr. President, I must be permitted to sny that there is not 
the shadow of a doubt as to tlie cliai-nctei' he specified. Christ 
is not charg^eable with the implied dislionor this discussion 
]>ut3 upon His Word, and Christianity, tcacliing the world, as 
it does, -t-hat it is a matter involved in thick darkness, and uncer- 
tainty — so thick and uncertain, that the best minds cannot 
clearly determine it, and hence this discussion. It is not be- 
cause this law is ambiguous ; to say so would be to impeach 
the wisdom and justice of the law-giver. There is not a 
child of twelve years in this State but can decide it in a mo- 
ment, and W(^nld, if uninfluenced. Not a converted heathen 
on any shore but can do it on hearing it once r^ad. Christ 
ditiers from all human and fallible law-makers. To ascertain 
his meaning, we have oidy to learn what he has said. He 
means what he says. If we have his words, we can ascertain 
without difficulty and without doubt, or his law is not bind-' 
ing upon us. 

Have we his words, is the first question ? Of this we can 
have no reasonable doubt. If we have not the " ipsissima verba''' 
—words in the language he uttered the command, we have 
the very words in the Greek text, that the infallible Holy 
Spirit decided were the exact equivalents of them. It was the 
Spirit Christ promised should do this very thing. "But the Com- 
forter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send 
in my name, he shall teach you all things and bring all things to 
your remembrance lohatsoever I have said unto you,'' John xiv. 26. 
The Evangelists wrote these books in Greek, under the infal- 
lible guidmgs of the Spirit, and the Greek text is therefore the 
ultimate source of appeal. That we have faithful copies of the 
original MSS. made from them, we have no justifiable grounds 
to doubt. Of the Greek text of Matthew, containing the 
commission, there never has a doubt been raised — upon 
the genuineness of the last eleven verses of Mark's gospel con- 
taining the commission, suspicions have been cast. They are 
not found as it stands in two of the more recent Codices — copies 
from the original. But the grounds of the suspicion are so 
slight that those verses were not thrown out or even 
marked as doubtful in the version made by the Bible Union, 
nor by Griesbech before me — ^and we hear no question raised 
by the English Commission at present engaged upon a new 
version. If these hst verses were not composed by Mark^ 



Believer's Baptism. 1059 

they doubtless were "by some other inspired hand. It is not 
for us to discuss here. We cannot go back of the textus 
receptus. 

Here is the law as received by both Matthew and Mark. 

"Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of 
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost : Teaching them to 
observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you : and, lo, I am with 
you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen."-^Matt. xxviii, 
19, 20. 

*'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
that belie veth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." — Mark xvi, 15, 16. 

This is the law, and the simple question is, Did Christ com- 
mandsLuy but believers to be baptized in this law? The settle- 
ment of the question from the very statement compels us to 
rest all upon the words of this commission. 7 he man that 
departs and endeavors to make it out some other way tacitly sur- 
renders the question — confesses judgment against himself. 

Dean Alford says : **As regards the command itself, no unprejudiced 
reader can doubt that it regards the outward rite of baptism, so well 
known in this gospel as having been practiced by John, and received by 
the Lord himself. And thus it was immediately, and has been ever since, 
understood by the Church. As regards all attempts to explain away this 
sense, We may say— even setting aside the testimony furnished by the 
Acts of the Apostles, — that it is in the highest degree improbable that our 
Lord should have given, at a time when He was summing up the duties 
of his Church in such weighty words, a command couched in figurative 
or ambiguous language — one which He must have known would be inter- 
preted by his disciples, now long accustomed to the rite and its name^ 
otherwise than He intended it."— Greek Testament, p. 283. 

My first argument is— 

1. If none are to be baptized by the command of Christ as re- 
corded by Matthew and Mark^ chapters 28 16, but such as are first 
discipled, or those who believe the gospel preached, then, infants and 
unbelievers ought not to be baptized. 

2. But none are to be baptized by this command of Christ 
as recorded in the commission but such as are first discipled, 
and believe the gospel preached. 

3. Therefore those who cannot be discipled and those who 
do not believe the gospel ought not to be baptized. 

If my first premise is denied, then it follows that if any 
one thing may be practiced without the command of Christ, 
any number of things can as well, and not only unconscious 
babes, but every vile character of earth may be baptized as 
well as the believer or disciple. Then there is no conceivable 
limit to the law of baptism, not infants only, not the children 
of Christians only, but adults of every class, Pagans, idolaterSj 
infidels and atheists can be baptized and thereby introduced 
into the Church of Christ 



io6o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

It is claimed by ritualists that the apostles understood the 
term Matheteusate to include the idea of baptizing, and that 
in this commission the haptizonti is a modal participle explana- 
tory of the verb " matheteusate.^^ I therefore propose critically 
to examine this and each word and phrase of this commission. 

Matheteusate, 

He had previously commissioned these apostles as well as the 
seventy to make disciples in the country of Judea, biit that 
commission, in its very words we have not — ^we know they 
did not do this without authority. But there is one very im- 
portant fact stated that throws a flood of clear light upon the 
meaning of this commission, burning away every particle of 
fog that has been blown upon it. We learn that they made 
disciples — poiei kai baptizei. There is no disputing the fact that 
the making preceded the baptizing, and was not done by the 
act of baptizing them. This, then, for three and a half years, 
had been the invariable practice of the apostles prior to the 
giving of the commission. The last commission was only an 
enlargement of the first. Before he had limited their minis- 
try to the narrow confines of Judea, now, he makes it coex- 
tensive with the habitable world. We are prepared to trans- 
late the commission intelligibly, " Go ye, etc., and make dis- 
ciples out of all nations," Make disciples as you have been 
doing while I was present with you, 'preach the gospel to all 
who can and will hear you, and those that gladly receive it, 
baptize into the name of the Father and of the Son and of 
the Holy Spirit, etc. 

To no man, in the unbiased exercise of his mind and con- 
science would the idea occur, with the record of the Apostles' 
previous ministry before him, that Jesus intended by this 
phraseology to command them to make disciples by a new 
and never before practiced process ; but he would decide at once 
that they were to go everywhere and do as the}^ had been do- 
ing in Judea, and as John had discipled them. Therefore a 
difficulty has to be suggested before one in a million of com- 
mon readers would conceive of any. 

It is claimed that the participle baptizing, stands as a 
modal adjunct to the verb teach — i, e., disciple, and explains 
the manner in which the action is to be done. Kow I do not 
deny that this phraseology is very common in Greek, or that 
participles following a verb without the article when in gram- 
matical and rational concord with the subject, may often stand 
as modal adjuncts to the verbal predicate, but the question is, 
does baptidzontes occupy such a position in this commission ? 
To say that it does, is plainly a begging of the question — 



Believer's Baptism. 1061 

taking for granted what must be proved — and that fortunately 
no man can prove, for the simple reason it is incapable of 
proof for two reasons : 1. The signification of the verb math- 
eteusate will not permit of it. It means, to teach so as to 
make a disciple, to make disciples by proper instruction — " to 
disciple." The command calls for a disciple to be made be- 
fore the next act is authorized to be commenced, for this the 
verb, from its very definition, implies and therefore it cannot 
be obeyed by doing the following act. The second act is not 
in rational concert with the first — i. e., it cannot be accom- 
plished by performing the first upon the object. There is an- 
other reason. 2. It is not the way Jesus had previously 
taught his Apostles that disciples were made, and to put this 
forced interpretation upon it would be without any previous 
warning or intimation, revolutionizing the whole previously 
taught plan ot evangelizing the world. If he did indeed 
mean that they should make disciples by baptizing all classes 
of all nations he needed to have given them additional in- 
structions. But that they did not so understand him, their 
entire practice the balance of their lives is a demonstration, 
for they never essayed to make any one a disciple by simply 
baptizing him. They discipleized^ but it was invariably by in- 
struction. The participle " baptizing" here then is undoubt- 
edly a temporal adjunct, denoting a consequent act to be per- 
formed. To say therefore that Christ authorized his apostles 
to disciple the nations by baptiziiig them is simply adding to 
his word. But the claim, if granted would include the fol- 
lowing participle as well — teaehing them, and would compel the 
objector, in spite ot his unwillingness to disciple by the teach- 
ing as well as by the baptizing, and the phraseology of the 
commission yields him not a shadow of authority for bapti- 
zing infants and children that cannot be instructed. 

Let us now logically translate this commission, by ascer- 
taining and using the literal and prmiary definitions of the terms, 
as our rules of interpretation require. Go ye therefore, maths- 
teusate from matheteuo. 

LiDDELL & Scott. — ^'Matheteuo to make a disciple of any one." 

Dr. Samuel Johnson, the great lexicographer, defines dis- 
ciple " a scholar; one that professes to receive instruction from 
another." 

'No infant ever did or can possess anything, or receive re- 
ligious instruction from preaching. 

DoNNAGAN. — (New Testament) '' To instruct." 

SCHREViLLius. — " To tcach." 

Hedericus. — " To teach." 

ScHLEUSNEE.— " To make a disciple, and especially in the 



io62 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

New Testament to draw an}^ one to the Christian religion." 
So all lexicons without exception. 

But all I have consulted agree with these, it is useless to 
multiply them. I am willing to render it as the translators 
of our version do in the margin, '-'make disciples or Chris- 
tians of, all the nations." 

I quote in support of this the most noted of all the Pedo- 

baptist theologians. 

CAiiViN. — " The evangelists frequently use the terms believers and dis- 
ciples as equivalent, and especially Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles." 
" Christ orders those to be baptized who shall have given their names to 
the gospel, and shall have professed themselves disciples : partly that 
baptism may be to them the watchword of eternal hfe before God, partly 
the external sign of faith amongst men. Therefore in Mark it is said, 
'He that belie veth and is baptized.' By which words Christ joms bap- 
tism to doctrine, so that the former may be merely an accession to the 
latter." 

LiMBOPvCH. — " They could not make disciples but by teaching. By 
this instruction the disciples were brought over to the faith before they 
were baptized. Mark xvi, 15, 16." " Hence also our Lord commanded 
that men should first be taught, and brought over to the faith, and after 
that be baptized, Matthew xxviii, 19 ; Mark xvi, 15, 16." — Ins., I. v. c. 
68, §2. 

Grotius. — " Since there are two ways of teaching, the one imj)erfect, 
by introduction to the first principles ; the other by more extensive in- 
struction: the former seems to be intended by maihefeuein: for it means 
to initiate as it w^ere into the doctrines and this is to precede baptism ; the 
latter is pointed out by didasl:em, which is to follow baptism." — Anno. 
on Matt, xxviii, 20 

RiGAJLTnis. — " The words of our Lord are exceedingly clear, who com- 
mands to teach before they baptize." This is not commanded expressly, 
but is taught by just and necessary implication. We have not in the 
commission the words firstly and second ly, but we have such an order in 
the instruction that Pedobaptists say with Jerome: " He commands the 
apostles first to teach all nations." It is very clear that the commission 
makes no distinction between baptizing some and baptizing others. If it 
imphes that teaching and discipling are in one instance to precede bap- 
tism, it implies that aU are to be taught and made disciples before baptism. 
Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, and others translate the words, ^^ Teach all na- 
tions." 

Vexema, on Matt, xxviii 19, 20, says: "This is an excellent passage, 
and explains the w^hole nature of baptism. Before persons were baptized, 
it was necessary for them to believe the preaching of the apostles, Tvhich 
€Edth they were to profess in baptism." — Diss Sac, I. ii, c. xiv, § 6. 

Episcopnis. — " It is objected that wa2!/iefewsci?f6 does not properly sig- 
nify to teach, but to make disciples. Be it so, yet disciples could not be 
made except they were taught those things that pertained to the re- 
ligion of Christ ; for a disciple and a teacher are correlates." — JResp. ad 
QucBS., quaes, xxxvii. 

B. Baxter. — " 'Go disciple me all nations, baptizing them.' As for 
those that say, they are discipled hy baptizing, and not before baptizing, 
they speak not the sense of that text ; nor that which is true or rational 
if they mean it absolutely as so spoken ; else why should one be baptized 
more than another? . . . When Christ layeth down in the apostohcal 
commission the nature and order of His apostles' work, it is first to make 
disciples, and then to baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and 



Believer's Baptism. 1063 

Holy Ghost. And as it is a making disciples which is first expressed in 
Matthew, so Mark expoundeth. . . . ' He that belie veth and is bap- 
tized, shall be saved.' This is not like some occasional historical mention 
of baptism, but it is the very commission of Christ to His apostles for 
preaching and baptism, and purposely expresseth their several works in 
their several places and order. Their first task is by teaching to make dis- 
ciples, which are by Mark called helievei-s. The second work is to baptize 
them. . . . The third work is to teach them all other things, which 
are afterwards to be learned in the school of Christ. To contemn this or- 
der is to renounce all rules of order : for where can we expect to find it if 
not here ? I profess, my conscience is fully satisfied, that it is one sort of 
faith, even saving, that must go before baptism." 

Abp. Newcome. — '■ I suppose it granted that Jesus could not make 
disciples without instructing them in the nature of His kingdom." — Dw- 
ration, &e. 

T. Boston. — "The commission for baptizing runs so, first, to 'make dis- 
ciples,' then to 'baptize' Matt, xxviii, 19. And this is the very native 
order of these things." — Works j p. 344. 

J. Fisher and E. Erskine. — "Ought not teaching and preaching of 
the word to go before baptism ? Yes ! Because our Lord has joined them 
together. Matt, xxviii, 19. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptiz- 
ing them, &c. And accordingly it was the uniform practice of the apos- 
tles to preach when they baptized. Acts ii, 38, 41 ; viii, 35, 38 ; xvi, 32, 
33.''— Fisher's Cate., p. 283. 

M. Poole. — "Go ye therefore and teach all nations.' The Greek is 
Matheteusate, make disciples of all nations ; but that must be first by 
preaching, and instructing them in the principles of the Christian faith ; 
and Mark expounds it, telling us our Savior said 'Go into all the world, 
and preach the gospel to every creature ;' that is, to every reasonable crea- 
ture capable of hearing and receiving it. I cannot be of their mind who 
think that persons may be baptized before they be taught : we want pro- 
cedents of any such baptism in Scripture ; though indeed we find prece- 
dents of persons baptized who had but a small degree of the knowledge 
of the gospel ; but it should seem that they were first taught, that 'Jesus 
Christ was the Son of God,' and were not baptized till they professed such 
helieV—Com., on Matt xxviii, 18-20. 

Dr. A. Clarke. — ^^Matheteusate make disciples of all nations, bring 
them to an acquaintance with God who bought them, and then baptize 
them in the name of the Father," &c. — Com., on Matt, xxviii, 19. 

C. Taylor. — " 'Teach all nations,' as you have taught- the Jews; bap- 
tize all nations, as you have baptized the Jews, is their unlimited com- 
mission. Those who were baptized by John and by the apostles, were all 
volunteers." — Facts and Evi., 2nd Let., p. 10. 

TuRRETiNE. — "Infants are no more capable of actual faith than they 
are of that instruction with which the adults are to be taught and made 
disciples of Christ, Matt, xxviii, 16." — Ins. Theol., p ii, g9. 

P Edwards. — "The apostles are to make disciples — that is all math- 
eteusate imports. But still the question is, how are they to make them ? 
I answer, by teaching ; for neither adult nor infant can be made a disci- 
ple without. And herein the Baptists are very right, and I agree with 
them, that adults and infants must be made disciples by teaching, or they 
will not be made so at all." — Cand. Rea., p. 125. 

Dr. Macknight." — To be baptized into the name of any person, or 
into a person, is solemnly, as Locke observes, to enter one's self a disciple 
of him into whose name he is baptized, and to profess that he submits 
himself implicity to his authority, and receives his doctrines and rules" 
{Com., on 1 Cor., i, 13). "The truth is, both passages (Matt, xxviii, 19, 
20, and Mark xvi, 15, 16) must be interpreted according to the subjects 



T064 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

treated of in them, which was plainly adult persons." In his Par, on 
the Gos., he unites Matt, xxviii, 19, 20, with Markxvi, 15, 26 and teaches 
that **they who beUeved were to be admitted into His church by the rite 
of baptism in the name of the Father," &c. 

" Ta ethna" "go ye therefore make Christians of all nations — 
ta ethna. It is strangely claimed by some, who seem desparate 
in their attempts to get some authority from this commission 
to baptize infants — that as infants made a part of the nations 
they were therefore commanded to baptize them also! While 
every man knows that infants as such, do not make any part 
of the nations. I will grant it for the sake of argument, but 
what relief is afibrded ? Do not drunkards, infidels and idiots 
also make a part of the nations — indeed were not these very 
ta ethna — Gentile nations — the apostles w^ere sent to, idolaters 
oue and all; and will you say they were to be baptized with- 
out previous instruction and a reception of Chnst by faith ? 
I will put it in logical form — if all nations, or any in the nations 
ought to be, baptized before they are discipled, they idolaters, 
Turks, Pagans and Atheists, and their children, and servants, 
ought to be because they make part of the nations. But you 
say that idolaters, Turks, Pagans and Atheists and their chil- 
dren and servants ought not to be baptized before they are 
Christianized by teaching and faith. Therefore no nation 
or parts of nations should be baptized before they are discipled 
by teaching. 

It is evident that an argument that proves too much, is^ fal- 
lacious and self-destructive. 

The phrase ^'matheteusate ta ethna''^ then means only this, 
"make as many disciples out of the nations as you can ; preach 
the gospel to such as can, and to all who will^ hear you " bap- 
tizontes autous^ 

In interpreting the terms in which a law is written, and all 
legal phrases, we are compelled by all admitted laws of inter- 
pretation to give them their primary and usual meaning, and 
as I have abundantly shown that the 'primary and usual signi- 
fication of bapiidzo is to immerse, I liesitate not to translate it 
here — " immersing them." As Dean Alford says : 

" It is in the highest degree improbable that Christ issued His command 
in figurative or, ambiguous language, which He knew would be inter- 
preted by His disciples, now long accustomed to the rite and its name, 
otherwise than he intended." 

Dr. Stacey, of England, (Methodist) says: 

" The apostles would naturally interpret the commission by then pre- 
vious knowledge of its terms, and execute its requirements in a way 
agreeing with their well-understood practice." — The. Sac. p. 284. 

Christ meant, unless He intended to deceive and mislead, 
to command the continued performance of the self-same act 



Believer's Baptism* 1065 

that John the Baptist had administered to Him and His apos- 
tles in the river of Jordan — the self-same act to the self-same 
characters, which His apostles had administered during all his 
ministry. No candid man will question this. 

Eis TO Onoma. 

Eis corresponds with our proposition into, and like, denotes 
a passage from a state or condition outside of a thing, to its 
interior parts. In all cases where the object is penetrable or 
capable of being entered, as a building, or organization, fol- 
lowing a verb of motion, it places the subject within the object, 
as though completely covered, enveloped by and buried within 
it. It accomplishes an immersion within the object. He fled 
into the house, he fell into the water, he plunged into the for- 
est, or was plunged into a bank of sand. It denotes in all 
instances a state of iniusposition, expressed by the latin intus, 
within. 

In its metaphorical use, which is in all cases where the ob- 
ject is not penetrable, or divisible, the figure is based on the 
priiniiive idea of intus position. The mind conceives of the 
idea of such an enwrapping of the subject by the object as 
that it is so completely within it as to be controlled by it. We 
are, therefore, said to " believe into Christ," which is the Greek 
idiom — the idea is that we have passed from a state without 
— of unbelief and opposition, rebellion, into a state of union 
with, and conformity to, Christ. We have so completely en- 
tered His views and feelings as to be entirely under His influ- 
ence and control — we have put Him on as a garment. It de- 
notes the most perfect state of trust and oneness with Christ. 

So the expressions plunged into destruction, or condemna- 
tion, or temptations, into debts, sorrows, miseries, shame, etc., 
implies a being wholly surrouned and overwhelmed by these. 
They envelop us on every side. 

To the expression, "through faith into (Cr.) salvation," 
"into obedience," " into the blood of Christ, " immersed into 
it," "into a lively hope," "into praise and honor," "into un- 
feigned love" — all to be found in the original — denote a full 
entrance into the states indicated. If of salvation, so as to be 
clothed with it as with a garment. Isaiah says," He hath clothed 
me with the garments of salvation." 

ISTow touching the phrase, baptized into the name of the 
Father, Son and Holy Ghost, denotes the passing of the sub- 
ject professedly from a state the opposite of within — i. e., 
without, a state of insubordination and rebellion, into a state 
of submission to and acquiescence in the authority of the 
triune God. Thus each one in the solemn act bv which he 



io66 'Ihe Great Carrollton Debate. 

enters publicly the visible kingdom of God, is required to 
profess his spiritual union ot heart and perfect incorporation 
with Him, whose name is Father, Son, and Spirit, and an en- 
tire consecration of life to the service of the tri-personal God, 
to be evermore controlled by him. We thus professedly put 
on the authority of God, while we profess our faith in the tri- 
personalty of his existence. Baptism is therefore in every 
instance a profession of a personal faith, based upon the fact 
of a previous spiritual union with Christ. Is this Ritualism ? 
Paul, therefore says, Gal. iii. 2^, "For as many of you as have 
been baptized into Christ, have puton Christ." Put on, taken 
upon you his authority, and a public prosession of future obe- 
dience to him. Baptism elsewhere, for this reason, is called 
"the 'profession^ homologia, of our faith." Having our hearts 
sprinkled from an evil conscience and our bodies washed in pure 
water, let us hold fast the profession, homologia, of our faith." 
In the act of baptism, therefore, we not only profess a per- 
sonal faith in Christ as Savior and law-giver, but we profess 
our faith in a tri-personal God, in the essential and perfect 
equality of the three divine persons of the Godhead. 'No 
Unitarian or Arian, any more than an unregenerate man or 
unconscious infant, can be baptized into the Trinity. The fol- 
lowing authorities, all Pedobaptists, sustain these views. 

GORMABUS. — "In Matt, xxviii, 19, our Lord speaks not concerning in- 
fants, but adults, who are capable of instruction." — Opera TheoL, p. 148. 

Beckmann. — " That the word Tnathefeuein, according to its etymology, 
signifies to make disciples, is readily allowed by all. But this is not af- 
fected without instruction ; for he who, as rnathetes, learns from another, 
is rationally taught something by him.. They therefore are disciples, who 
are taught and learn." — Exer. TheoL, exer. vii. 

Dr. Wall. — " The commission given by our Savior to His disciples in 
the time of His mortal life, to baptize in the country of Judea, is not at 
all set down in Scripture ; only it is said that they baptized (1 ) a great 
many. And the enlargement of that commission given them afterwards, 
Matt, xxviii, 19, to perform, the same otfice among all the heathen na- 
tions, is set down in such brief words, that there is no particular direction 
given what they were to do in reference to the children of those that re- 
ceived the faith. And among all the persons that are recorded as bap- 
tized by the apostles, there is no express mention of any infant." (Infant 
Baptism, vol. i, pi3. v, vi.") 

Dr. Lardner. — "The language may be paraphrased thus: Go ye 
therefore into all the world, and teach, or disciple all nations ; baptizing 
them into the profession of faith in, and an obligation to obey the doc- 
trines taught by Christ." — In Dr. G. Payne's Lee. on Chris. Theol., vol. 
i. p. 299. 

Poole says : " In the name of the Father, &e. In the Greek it is eis 
^o onoma, into the name . . . in the authority, or (which is indeed 
the chief) into the profession of the Trinity of the persons in the one Di- 
vine Being.'. 

Dr. W. Haisi^a. — " To be baptized into the name, is to be taken up 
into, to be incorporated with Him whos^ name is Father, Son, and Holy 



Believer's Baptism. 1067 

Ghost. The term is impressive or symibolic, not of a mere outward and 
formal acknowledment or confession of our faith in the Divinity, as He 
has been pleased to reveal himself to us under that mysterious dis- 
tinction of a threefold personality; but of an inward and spiritual com- 
munion, fellowship, with the Father, the Son, the Holy Ghost !" — The 
Forty, &c., pp. 174-175. 

Dr. Lange, says Stier, "unfolds and paraphrases in its fulness of 
meaning the eis to onoma : ' they must be baptized in His presence, by 
His authority, into fellowship with Him, and blessed knowledge of His 
nature.'"— Words, &c. (Stier), vol. viii, pp. 308-309. 

It gives me special pleasure to quote at some length the 
views of the learned Dr. A. Stevens, a standard and distin- 
guished w^riter in my friend's denomination, and I think it 
able, clear and conclusive on this point. 

"The church, in administering the rite, and the subjects, in receiving it, 
profess their faith in God, as revealed in the formula, and pledge them- 
selves to him as their Lord." "By following him (Moses) into the sea, 
they '^the Israelites) professed their faith in him as a leader and a com- 
mander ; so in baptism the subject professes his faith in God as revealed 
in the formula ; promises his obedience to Him. He is baptized unto, not 
by the authority of the Trinity." "With the explanation of this mani- 
festation of God in the Son, the formula has nothing to do, and creeds 
should have as little. But the fact to be believed is there ; and a profession 
of faith in it, on entering the church, is a necessity by Christ's command. 
In the rite of baptism the subject is required, or rather obliged, to profess 
his faith in Christ, not as divine simply, but under law, on the same plane 
with himself." "In the formula of baptism, the Holy Ghost is revealed 
as equal in being to the Father and Son, and something more. The term 
is not a synonym of Father and Son. It defines personality, and also a 
distinct relation to the subject of baptism. No person can receive this 
rite and not profess his faith in that special relation. He has wants that 
are met only by it. For what could be the meaning of baptism into one 
who is not needed ? Baptism into the Holy Ghost is a pledge from the 
subject that he accepts Him as One who meets his wants, where they are 
not met by Father and Son. He professes that he has wants that are not 
provided for in the atonement ; he is an alien from God, though the Son 
"has finished the work the Father gave Him to do." He looks to the 
Holy Ghost for help in this particular. This he must profess in baptism. 
For if all our wants as sinners were met by the Father and Son, there 
would be no meaning in being baptized into the Holy Ghost. One who 
does not believe in a new birth, by the Holy Ghost, cannot intelligently 
and honestly receive baptism in tliis formula." 

I add but one more quotation : "And the church by Christ's command 
is required to demand this profession (of universal obedience to God) from 
aU that are received as her members. She cannot administei' baptism 
without this. She must meet her members as she receives them, — with a 
creea as a test of membership." — Quoted from Watchman and Reflector, 
Boston, issue Sept.l6, 1875. This the Baptist church does. It is true of no 
other church. 

I then, Mr. President, accept the creed for my denomination, 
and I hold that it is involved in the baptismal formula that 
cannot be repeated without mockery, and I might say blasphe- 
my over one that does not believe the doctrine of atri-personal 
God, or who is both destitute and incapable ot exercising any 
faith at all. The Papists baptize grave yards and churches, 
locomotives and bells, mules and horses, with this formula ! 



io68 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Is it not mockery — is it not blasphemy. But it is evident that 
a church bell is as morally conscious as an infant, and if this 
formula excludes the one it does the other. We plant our- 
selves here as Baptists under the shadow of the three sacred 
names, and declare that you cannot baptize any one, young or 
old, unless it personally, possess faith and is able to make a 
public profession of it in his baptism. This we hold as a peo- 
ple; and just because we do so hold, we also hold to believer's 
baptism, and to a church no longer hereditary and national, 
but made up of " all in every place," the world over, whose 
personal faith thus finds expression in baptism. Believers 
are to be baptized, and the baptized are believers. Children 
may thus believe without their parents, and parents without 
their children; the husband without the wife, and the 
wife without the husband. As the father's sour grapes 
cannot set the children's teeth on edge, so the father's faith 
can bring the child to baptism only as his faithfulness works 
out a corresponding faith in the latter. As, at the last, each 
one must give account of himself to God, and the decision be 
based on Christ's own declaration, -' lie that believeth shall 
be saved, and he that believeth not shall be damned," so the 
door of Christ's kingdom is opened only to those who in the 
ver}^ act of entrance profess their personal faith in Father, 
Son and Holy Ghost. 

I call my opponent's attention, to the triple strength of this 
commission which oflers an invincible refutation of all his 
claims however numerous or plausible, to any authority in 
God's Word for the baptism of an infant. I am willing to 
rest the decision of the whole question upon this law, this 
only law for baptizing any one, Jew or Gentile, adult or in- 
fant. I could grant you that Abraham sprinkled his infants 
to admit them into his church if he had one — I say family and 
nothing more — I could admit that during the entire existenoe 
of the Jewish commonwealth, Jewish parents by God's com- 
mand sprinkled or baptized their infants; but I stand here un- 
der the New Dispensation, and acting under the J^ew Coven- 
ant, and upon the threshold of the new church, with this new 
law in my hand that never before was published in the ear of 
earth, and I say to Eld. Ditzler, and I say to all Catholics and 
Protestants alike, you cannot for three invincible reasons bap- 
tize an infant or a bell, a church yard, or a dead sinner, under 
it. It positively and with threefold voice like the Trinity it 
proclaims, forbids the baptism of an infant or an unbeliever. 
Christ the only Kinsc in Zion, he who has all power in heaven 
and earth, commands that those baptized under it shall, 

1st. Be disci pled by Christian instruction — Christianized. 



Believer's Bapsism. 1069 

An infant cannot be instructed or discipled. He commanded 
them first of all, says Mark, to preach the gospel to every 
creature. They could not preach to infants any more than 
to beasts and birds, and therefore he did not include an 
infant in the command. 

2d. He commanded these disciples to be immersed into the name^ 
etc., which involves faith, vrhich infants cannot exercise, and 
therefore they no more than bells or birds are included, but 
legally excluded. Mark tells us that he specified the charac- 
ter to be baptized, " he that believeth'^ — i e, the believer, an in- 
fant no more than a bell can believe, and therefore all uncon- 
scious non-believing beings, as well as inanimate objects. He 
positively forbade them, and His church in all future time, to 
baptize. But a third reason. He commanded His apostles 
to teach all those they baptized to observe all things, etc., 
v^hich he had commanded. Infants cannot be taught, and 
therefore this law forever excludes them from christian baptism* 
If you baptize them it is under some other law than this, some 
law that God never gave; if He did, the Holy Spirit has not 
recorded it in this book. If you have authority, it is not of 
God, nor in His word. But this terrible phrase in some form 
starts out of every epistle, like a fiery cherub with his two 
edged sword to guard the way of baptism against the approach 
of the infant and un regenerate. 

" Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ 
were baptized into his deatli ? 

Baptized into Christ-^haptized into death. 

Pres. Edwards.— "Baptism, by which tlie primitive converts were 
admitted into the church, was used as an exhibition and token of their 
being visibly regenerated, dead to sin— as is evident by Rom. vi. through- 
out," He does not mean only that their baptism laid them under special 
obligation to these things, and was a mark and token of their engage- 
ment to be thus hereafter: but was designed as a mark, token, and exhibi- 
tion of their being visibly thus already." — EnquL into Qual. for full 
Communion. 

Dr. Goodwin.--* 'He argues ft-om the known and generally-received 
profession and practice of all Christians. Know ye not that so many of 
us as were baptized— that is^ whoever of us that profess baptism into 
Christ, profess baptism into His death, as the thing intended by it." — 
Works, vol. iv, p. 30. 

ViTRlNGA. — "To be baptized into Christ is beyond doubt to be baptized 
into this, that each should profess his communion with Christ ; that each 
by that baptism, as by a sign and testimony, should avow that he had 
believed in Christ."— d6«. Sac, iii, 22> 822. 

R. Baxter. — "Know ye not that when men are baptized they are by 
vow, covenant, aod profession, listed into the belief of a crucified Savior, 
who died for sin to save us from it ; and do profess that repentance by 
which we renounce it^ as dead to it for the time to come ? Therefore in 
our baptism we are dipped under the water, as signifying our covenant 
profession ; that as He was buried for sin, we are dead and buried to sin ; 



107© The Great Carrollton Debate. 

that as the glorious power of God raised Him from the dead, so we should 
rise up to live to Him in hoUness and newness of hve" {Par. on N. ^., 
on Rom. vi, 3, 4). "To be buried and risen with Christ signifleth, A be- 
ing dead to sin, and alive to God and newness of life : and it is not only 
(as is feigned by the opposers) an engagement to this for the future, but a 
profession of it only at the present" {Disp'c. of Right to Sac.) 

W. GiIjPE>'. — "The Christian, by his profession, is dead to sin The 
very act of hi^ initiation implies it. What does baptism represent but our 
dying to sin, and rising to righteousness ? &c. — Expo., Rom. vi, 1-4. 

M. Henry.— "Our baptism signifies our cutting off from the kingdom 
of sin ; we profess to have no more to do with sin. . . . Baptism is 
externa ansa Christi, by which Christ lays hold on men, and men offer 
themselves to Christ. ... As Christ died for sin, we should die to 
sin. This was the profession and promise of our baptism" ( Com., on Ro 
vi, 5). "Being baptized into Christ we are baptized into his death, that as 
He died and rose again, so, in conformity thereunto, we should die unto 
sin, and walk in newness of life (Ro. vi, 3, 4)" (Com., on Gal. iii, 27). In 
his Treatise on Baptism, he says (p, 41), "We are said to be buried with 
Christ by baptism, and planted in the likeness of Hjs death (Ro. vi, 4, 5) ; 
which intimates our dying to every sin." Again (pp. 43, 44), "Those who 
are baptized into Christ, have professedly put on Christ ; and it is incon- 
sistent with our putting on Christ, to make provision for the flesh to ful- 
fil the lusts thereof." 

Bp. Patrick, — "We are baptized into His death.— We are buried with 
Him in baptism." "We hy going into the water profess that we are 
willing to take up the cross, and die for Christ's sake. "—In Booth's Peed. 
Ex., vol. i, p. 136. 

Dr. Mackxight.— "To be baptized" "into a person, is" "to enter one's 
self a disciple of him mto whose name he is baptized, and to profess that 
he submits himself implicitly to his authority, and receives his doctrines 
and rules." "Buried with Him in baptism, as persons whose old man 
hath been crucified with Him (see Rom. vi, 6), in which baptism also, 
that it might be a complete einblem of your circumcision, ye have been 
raised with Him out of the water, as persons made spiritually ahve, 
through your belief of the strong working of God who raised Him from 
the dead." — Com., on 1 Cor. i, 13 ; Col. ii, 12. 

Dr. Whitby.— "For know yQ not that as many (of us) as were baptized 
into (and by that baptism professed ourselves diciples of) Jesus Christ, 
were baptized into (the likeness of) His death, (and so engaged to die unto 
sin, as He died for sin, 1 Pe iv, 1, 2, and this must also consequently be 
an engagement to live to Him that died for us, and rose again, 2 Cor. v, 
15.) ver. 4 (For) therefore we are buried with Him by baptism, (plunging 
us under the water) into (a conformity to His) death, (which put His body 
under the earth,) that like as Christ was raised up from the grave by the 
glory (or power) of the Father, even so we also (tlius dead in baptism) 
should (rise with Him and) walk in newness of life."— Para, on Ro. 
vi, 3. 4. 

Bp. Taylor. — "Baptism is never propounded, mentioned, or enjoined, 
as a means of remission of sins, or of eternal life, but something of duty, 
choice, and sanctity is joined with it, in order to the production of the 
end so mentioned. 'Know ye not that as many as are baptized into 
Jesus Christ, are baptized into His death' (Ro. vi, 4)? There is the mys- 
tery and the symbol together, and declared to be perpetaally united, osoi 
ebaptisthemen. All of us who are baptized into one, were baptized into 
the other, not only into the name of Christ, but into His death also. But 
the meaning of this as it is explained in the following words of St. Paul, 
makes much for our purpose ; for to be baptized into His death signifies, 
To be buried with Him in baptism, that as Christ rose from the dead, we 
also should walk in newness of fife (ver. 4). That is the full mystery of 



Believer s Baptism. 1071 

baptism ; for being baptized into His death, or which is all one in the next 
words, ^en omoiomati tou thanatou autou,'* 'Into the likeness of His 
death' (ver. 5), cannot go alone ; if we be so planted into Christ, we shall 
be partakers of the resurrection ; and that is not here instanced in precise 
reward, but in exact duty, for all this is nothing but crucifixion of the old 
man, a destroying of the body of sin, that we no longer serve sin (ver. 
6j. This indeed is truly to be baptized, both in the symbol and the mys- 
tery : whatsoever is less than this is but the symbol only, a mere ceremo- 
ny, an opu8 operatum, a dead letter, an empty shadow, an instrument 
without an agent to manage, or force to actuate it." — Lib. of Pro,., pp. 
844, 345. 

E. BiCKERSTETH.— '"Baptism is the ^•ery token and sign that we ake 
dead to sin How shall we, asks St. Paul, that are dead to sin, live any 
longer therein? Know ye not that so many of us as were baptized into 
Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? therefore," &c. ''Rom. vi, 
2-8. The statement in the Colossians is similar, ii, 11-13 ; iii, 1-3." "The 
all-comprehensive blessing thus included in baptism is our being so brought 
thereby through faith into union with Christ as to share all He did. Hence 
we should by faith regard all that Christ went through as gone through 
for us; ajid we, believing in Him, are judicially regarded before God as 
having passed through all that He did. It does not appear to me that 
true faith in the apostle's statement can rest in a meaning short of this : 
So many of us (observe here the universality, every idividual without ex- 
ception) as were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death. 
A similar universality in a distributive individuality we have. Gal. iii, 27. 
As many of you," &c. 

Dr. A. Clarke.— "To be baptized into Christ is to receive the doctrine 
of Christ crucified, and to receive baptism as a proof of the genuineness 
of that faith, and the obligation to live according to its precepts." — Com.., 
on Rom. vi, 3. 

Dr. Chalmers, having spoken of immersion as primitive baptism, 
says, "We advert to this for the purpose of throwing light on the analogy 
that is instituted in these verses (Rom. vi, 3, 4). Jesus Christ by death 
underwent this sort ol baptism, even immersion under the ground, whence 
He soon emerged again by His resurrection. We being baptized into His 
death, are conceived to have made a similar translation ; in the act of 
descending under the water of baptism to have resigned our old life, and 
in the act of ascending, to emerge in a second, or new life."— -i^ec. on 
Rom., on ch vi. 

(1) We ought not to practice in the name of Christ what we cannot 
prove from the Scriptures was ever instituted by Christ, 

(2) But " It cannot be proved by Sacred Scripture that Infant Bap- 
tism was instituted by Christ." 

(3) Therefore, Infant Baptism ought not to be performed in the name 
of Christ. 

(1) If Christ requires teaching before baptism and will havenone but 
believers admitted to baptism, we sin against Christ by baptizing mind- 
less infants that can neither be taught nor are capable of exercising faith 

(2) But Calvin declares that Christ does so require. 

(8) Ergo^ We sin against Christ by baptizing mindless infants. 

Baxter's Syllogism. 

(1) If there can be no examples given in Scripture of anyone that 
was baptized without the profession of a saving faith nor any precept 
for so doing, then must we not baptize any without it, 

(2) But the antecedent is true. 

(3) Therefore is the consequent. 



1072 The Great Carrollton Debate 



DR. DITZLER'S FIRST REPLY. 



As you see^ this proposition is the same as the second, with 
me in the negative this time. We will briefly review the 
leading points in Dr. Graves' speech, then offset all by com- 
pletely establishing the negative — that is, infant baptism. 
The Doctor relies on the commission to establish his position. 
I yet affirm that Matt, xxviii. 19, is our sole, our only authority 
to baptize anybody. Kor has the Doctor dissented, nor any 
one I know of. 

He will grant that Abraham, Moses, etc., sprinkled the in- 
fants, if I prefer, but he stands on the new law of the commis- 
sion. Yery welL We stand on it also. " If you break down 
the limitation (of the commission) then pagans, infidels, etc., 
are to be baptized," he tells us. True. But what are the 
limitations, and where are thev to be found? That is all im- 
portant. We will find them in dne order and time. 

You say the man who baptizes one, makes the baptized 
party a member of the church of which he is a member; ^. e., 
of that individual congregation. Of what congregation did 
the journeying Philip make the traveling Eunuch? or Ana- 
nias, Saul of Tarsus? or John the multitudes? or Peter the' 
house of Cornelius? John and Peter, the Samaritans, etc., etc.. 
Acts viii, ix, x, xxii, etc. 

But let us come to the commission, on which our Brother 
relies to destroy infant membership and the necessary conse- 
quent of that right, viz.: baptism. 

1. Mark xvi, 15, 16. Here he tells us only believers are 
baptized. Infants cannot believe, therefore are not to be bap- 
tized. But (1) granting the authenticity of this psssage, which 
is not in any Bible [MS.] or copy of a version earlier than 
the sixth century, and marked doubtful in all the versions and 
manuscripts in which it first appears, and all the most learned 
in this field, even of its defenders, such as Alford, Tregelles, 
etc., admit it was not written by Mark; yet (2) It proves noth- 
ing to the point. Believers are baptized here, and all Mark's 
unbelievers are damned. If this verse is meant to exclude all 
incapable of belief from baptism it means to damn them. All 
saved here have to believe in order to be saved, and are prop- 
erly baptized when they believe. But as the same principle 



Believer's Baptism. 1073 

that iiere disqualifies for baptism disqualifies for heaveu, and 
necessarily includes damnation, it cannot be meant to exclude 
infants. "He that does not work shall not eat." *'In the 
sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread/' etc., are as this verse, 
to be interpreted in the light of existing and recognized facts 
and common sense. Clearly the verse was meant to hold this 
much only : Of those capable of being preached to — •' preach 
to every creature [capable of hearing]; he that believeth and 
[of course if he believes he will submit promptly, where pos- 
sible, to the ordinances] is baptized, shall be saved. He that 
believeth not [rejects it] shall be damned." 'No one here is 
denied salvation or baptism, but such as being preached to, 
reject salvation. 

2. The Doctor comes to what he knows is the only reliable 
and proper commission. Matt, xxviii, 19, 20. We cannot ac- 
cept the marginal rendering " make Christians." Mathateuo 
never means *' make Christians." The Doctor knows, as every 
scholar does, it is " disciple" — so all Baptists, Carson, Gale, 
Dr. Graves, A. Campbell, Dr. Wilkes, Anderson, Wilson, all 
are agreed here — -all scholars of all churches. There is no 
dispute. 

But immersionists contend that it necessai'ily includes pre- 
vious instruction received, that the parties may be discipled. 
Dr. Graves quotes Johnson that a disciple is a learner — one 
taught. Now we will show, first, that discipling, enrolling 
disciples, making or receiving disciples, does not necessarily 
include or imply previous instruction. 

2. If it did, it would not destro}^ infant baptism or infant 
membership, but sustain it. 

1, Then, discipling, in the T^ible, does not necessarily in- 
clude previous instruction. (1) The vast majority of scholars, 
Alford, Olshausen, Stier, Lightfoot, etc., maintain our views 
here. (2) The Bible completely settles it. 

1. The teaching [didaskontes) is expressly named in the 
commission as coming after both discipling and baptism. 

2. The whole economj^ of God's Government rested on 
this basis. Kombers iii, 28, "And the number of all the 
males, from a month old and upward, were eight thousand and 
six hundred, keeping the charge of the sanctuary." That is, 
these infants were enrolled, even at a month old, that they 
might be, at the earliest period, instructed in, and impressed 
with, the weight and responsibility of their charge — discipled. 
But tar more decisive still, is the fact for the fifteen hundred 
years preceding the hour the first commission of Jesus, even 
[Matt. X, entire, and the second one, to Gentiles as well; {ta ethe) 
"the Gentiles,"] up to the hour of this commission, always 

67 



1074 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

when a disciple was made from Gentiles, from Moses till 
Christ uttered these words, his infants always were discipled 
— received in the Jewish Church — with the parent or parents. 
Ko one denies this. All admit it. Christ was a Jew. The 
twelve apostles were all Jews. People were thence forwarded 
to be discipled to Christ. But, Matt, xviii, 5, Christ, with a 
little child before them, young enough to symbolize innocence, 
not to need repentance or conversion, declares, "Whoso shall 
receive one such little child, in my name, receiveth me."' 
Into what could little children be received? Does not this 
show an act of discipleship — receiving them in the name of 
Christ? But a learner, you say is a disciple. But Paul shows 
distinctly that people become such disciples or learners from 
infancy. 2 Timothy iii, 15, 16: "And [apo brephous) 'from 
infancy,' thou hast known the Holy Scriptures." He had 
been taught, then, by his mother, Eunice, in infanc}'— was a 
disciple, learner, taught. Here, even if Dr. Graves should sus- 
tain his position, that disciple implies antecedent instruction, 
the ^ew Testament puts it in proof that in infancy this can be 
done and was done. This sheds additional light on the words 
"bring up a child in the way he should go; train them up in 
the nature and admonition of the Lord" — disciple them. 

3. Christ shows that previous instruction does not necessa- 
rily precede discipling, in the most renowned and striking in- 
stances in the world. 

Matt, iv, 18, 19, 21, 22; ix, 9, shows that in not an instance 
of discipling the twelve apostles did teaching of any kind pre- 
cede the act of enrolling them as his disciples. Teaching all 
who came afterward at indefinite periods. 

Hence we have 1st refuted all the positions of the Doctor; 
2d, completeh' sustained our own. 

Let us now put ourselves in the condition to appreciate and 
understand the commission ; its limitations as well. It is to 
be understood in the "light of existing tacts, customs and laws. 
]^o one can deny this. How dare you baptize with water? 
Wh}' not with oil, wine, ink, blood or syrup? Why with 
water? The commission no vrhere names "with water." It 
simply says " baptize." But religious baptism had been " with 
water" from Moses, though other elements were used for 
baptizing, and now John limited it to water, as proselyte bap- 
tism alwavs had done. It was only "with water." Hence 
this " limitation " remains, though not specified. The commis- 
sion specifi.es no class save Gentiles, but no specified class of 
Gentiles. It does not name man, woman, children or infants. 
One class is as much specified as the other. Suppose we were 
to send out Methodist and Baptist missionaries to-day. W© 



Believer's Baptism. 1075 

would carefully provide for their finances, family comforts, se- 
lect the field, arrange prospects, etc., but would Baptists specify 
what class to baptize? Why not? Because the habits, cus- 
toms and well known practice of Baptists make it wholly 
unnecessary. They would disciple as Baptists. So these 
Jews. Suppose we were to send our teachers to organize pub- 
lic schools in Asia and Africa. What w^ould the army of 
teachers naturally do? Receive just the ages to their schools 
they received here, unless positive directions attended order- 
ing a different practice. For fifteen hundred years infants 
were always discipled with their believing parents, and the 
Jews knew no other practice. 

But let us now review some facts developed at great length 
in proposition second, on church oneness. 

'We must keep it before us, that Christ and his apostles and 
disciples were all Jews. That he and they never disparaged 
the Bible. That they only complained of the Jew^s ignoring 
it and disobeying it. That he came not to destroy even the 
law of the prophets. We must remember that the apostles called 
each other Jews all the time (Gal. ii, 13, 14, 15,) and that 
Christ said, '^ Search the Scriptures." John v, 29, '' That the 
Bereans were more noble than those of Thessalonica, in 
that they searched the Scriptures daily to see whether those 
things were so," w^hich the apostles taught. What Scriptures 
"were these ? The old Testament. Not a word of the New 
had been written. The early Christians tested all apostolic 
teaching and practice by that Old Testament that many of you 
immersionists now hold in contempt. What said Paul, in the 
last letter he ever wrote, just as he was about to be offered up 
and the time of his departure was at hand? This was long 
after Pentecost — long after Gentiles were brought in. 2 Tim. 
iii, 15, 16, 17, "And that from a child [from infancy] thou 
hast known the Holy Scriptures, [when he was an infant, 4, 
5, years old, not a word of the New Testament was written. 
This is the Old Testament of which he speaks; and mark what 
Paul says further], which are able to make thee wise unto sal- 
vation, * * All Scripture is profitable for doctrine; * * 
for instruction in righteousness," etc. Thus Paul speaks at 
the close of his life. 

' We must further recollect that the gospel and the epistles 
came in one by one, scattered through the world in distant 
parts; that whole communities of churches would have only 
the Old Testament, till quite the close of the apostolic age. 
Others would have one, two or three of the epistles, some one 
gospel, others a couple of gospels, or one gospel and an epistle, 
etc. Few churches, even fifty years after Paul's death, had 



1076 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

all of his epistles or the gospels. Nay^ the 'Ne^y Testament 
was not finished till A. D., 96. ITot for another hundred years 
did many churches have all the New Testament bound up 
together. The Old with an epistle or so, was their source of 
light, so far as the Bible went. The old Testament, then, was 
yet pre-eminently the source of their instruction. In the light 
of all these facts, let us now look at the surroundings of the 
Jews who received, Ist, a commission to operate among the 
Jews of the lost sheep of the house of Israel. (Matt, x.) 2d, 
a commission to all Gentiles. Matt, xxviii, 19. 

1. We saw (proposition second) that, to go no further back, 
God had a church from Moses till Christ appeared in the fiesh 
to restore the paths and raise up {anoikodomceso) rebuild the 
tabernacle of David (the spiritual church restored) that had 
fallen into decay — to rebuild the ruins thereof (Acts xv, 16) — 
for "I will set it up again" (anerthoso) set upright again, i, e, 
strengthen, establish. 

2. Stephen (Acts vii, 38; Paul, Heb. ii, 12; xii, 22) applies 
the words " the church " to God's people in those times. 

3. They were Spiritual. Christ was the foundation of their 
faith, its founder and finisher, the Spiritual food of all the 
pure and good. (1 Cor. x, 3-4; Peter, 1-9, etc., etc. This 
we established, speech first, proposition second. 

4. That the word church (ecclesia), used by Christ and Paul, 
was borrowed from the Old Testament, used in the same sense 
exactly as there, and as in the Apochryphal writings of the 
Jews, 

5. That they met after the captivity, not only in the temple, 
five centuries before Christ, and until Christ's day, in syna- 
gogues, as well as in temples, to worship, as we do, and to 
these '^assemblies of the upright" not only the Old Testament 
and Apochrypha,bat Christ and Paul apply the word " church." 
They had officers corresponding to our deacons, elders and 
bishops in the church; expelled members for immorality, as 
we do now, excommunicated, etc. All details were given in 
my opening speech on proposition second. Jesus Christ calls 
them " church" when he savs, '^ tell it to the church." Matt, 
xviii, 17.) This is the second and last time Christ uses the 
word church, rapeating it in the same verse. All the facts he 
names in this connection were familiar, well-known matters 
among all Jews then, as not only his words imply, but the 
writings of the Jews abundantly show. (See Selden, Opera, 
vols. I and II, Sunedris; Lightfoot's Horse Heb., etc.) He 
used the word church there for a single congregation or local 
assembly of the church that met in any synagogue, just as we 
all use it daily now. 



Believer's Baptism. 1077 

6. Infants enjoyed membership in the church, and were all 
baptized. The fact of infant membership is admitted by all 
immersionists. See A. Campbell's Ch. Bap. 108, 109 sq ; 
Carson, a Baptist, (and Dr. Garves' favorite, pages 233 and 234, 

Over and again have v^e defined the church. Over and 
again Dr. Graves says we did not. We read elaborate defi- 
nitions of it twice. We showed the Greek words meaning 
" called," '^ called out," " assembled." So it occurs constantly 
in the Old and New Testaments. That it is used in a secular 
and religious sense — the Hebrew and Greek words. That as 
a religious word it had a two-fold application; 1st. it meant 
all God's people — all in a saved relation to him. In this 
sense it often applies to all those in Heaven and those in such 
saved relation on earth through all time. It occurs as ap- 
plicable to all such of earth, in all ages, regarding the church 
as a unity. (See prop. 4; where this was elaborated also.) 
To this the most eminent Baptists have always adhered, 
though Dr. Graves and his adherents repudiate it. We quot- 
ed Bunyau, Kipley, etc., that any number of these may con- 
gregate, assemble and organize themselves, and as such form 
a local church — congregation of God's church. 

iJ^ow these people are not a church because they congregate, 
assemble, etc. Not because they do this and are baptized, 
take the Lord's Supper. These are not the diferentia. Un- 
converted people, wicked mockers, Pharisees could do all 
these things. In what, then, consists true membership ? 
Wherein have they membership ? Not by virtue of identity 
with a local congregation, for that does not of itself constitute 
membership as just seen. lieal membership, then, exists in 
our relation to the spiritual church — God's family, and any 
part of that family assembled, etc., constitutes a church in the 
local sense, as used in Matt, xviii, 17, etc., and often by Paul, 
James, etc. Hence Christ is the Head. It is in Christ we 
have membership — there alone. Here is where Baptists of 
to-day, and their writers, are in such confusion; in a perfect 
muddle. They have no clear conception of the church; no 
well-defined ideas of it. Now, while actual, real membership ex- 
ists in the One universal church, its ordinary recognition or 
outward manifestation is through the local assembly of his 
people. Here ordinances are administered, membership rec- 
ognized, and through these local assemblies all official action 
originates, directly or indirectly. All these matters were fully 
developed in former speeches, which see. 

We showed formerly (prop 2, sp'ch 3d) that when Israel went 
out, laws were made for Proselytes — the first thing done, Ex. 
xii, 47. 49; Num. ix, 14; xv, 15, 16. No baptism had yet 



1078 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

been named or ordained. Only circumcision is yet named, 
and the Lord's Supper, Ex. xii. Mark yoa, it says ^' One 
law" shall be for both; "One ordinance, one law and one 
manner shall be for you and the stranger that sojourneth with 
you." Here we see that the Jews and Proselytes were to be 
one in manner, law, ordinances. If Jews baptized, Gentiles 
had to be baptized. Lightfoot and others failed to notice the 
fact that the law for Proselytes was made in full before bap- 
tism was ordained, or named, (as it is not named till Exodus 
xxix : XXX: 18, 22, nor enforced till Lev. viii, 6), the Prose- 
lytes came under the same rite of baptism as all Jews. 

7. All their infants were baptized — Jews or Proselyte. 
We give now just one example, Joel ii, 15, 17, as exhibiting 
the practice:. 

''Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn 
assembly. Gather the people, sanctify {ecclesian) the church" 
(congregation in James). What does all this mean? What 
is up? How did the Priests "sanctify the church?" Paul 
and Moses tell us — Heb. ix, 13, where the water, in which the 
ashes of a heifer, " sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the 
purifying of the flesh." Num. viii, 7, " Thus shalt thou do 
unto them to cleanse them, sprinkling water of purifying on 
them." See also ]^um. xix, 9-18 ; John ii, 6. 

But the sprinklings of Heb. ix, 13, and those v, 19, 21, are 
called by Paul " diverse baptisms." The word diaphorois 
means different in kind, different sorts. The elements were 
diverse, three or four in kind he names. The objects were 
four in kind — people, the book, the tabernacle and vessels of 
the ministry. Hence they were " diverse baptisms." Here, 
then, we have in Joel, the Priests baptizing the church on a 
most solemn occasion — sprinkling water upon them. 

Well, says one, I've often asked for baby sprinkling — said 
it was not in the Bible — is that a case? Let us see. 1. We 
have the church. 2. They are sprinkled with water. 3. Paul 
calls it baptism. The mode has been settled already. We 
read on in Joel — "sanctify — [i. e., sprinkle water of purifying 
upon — baptize] the church, assemble the elders, gather the 
children." Oh, says one, that is it, is it? They were great 
big fellows — we baptize them — we want babes — unconscious 
babes — not eighteen years old children. Yery well, I have 
not finished yet. And "those that 'suck the breasts" — 
how old are they? Are they eighteen years old? " Let the 
bridegroom go forth from his chamber, and the bride out of 
her closet. Let the priests, the ministers of the Lord weep, 
* * * and cry spare thy heritage, Lord," etc. Here, 
most conspicuously, was there a great baby sprinkling, called 
by Paul baptism. 



Believer's Baptism. 1079 

]^ow, then, we have the church; infants in it; infants bap- 
tized. Then, 1 Cor. x, 1, 2, all our fathers v^ere baptized (eis) 
unto. You say unto the recognition of Moses as their leader 
— by God's baptizing them he meant to commit them to 
Moses as their lawgiver and leader. But the infants were 
baptized, thousands of them, in this the first recorded baptism 
of water in the world, and by the Almighty committed to 
Moses as their leader and legislator. They, of all others, were 
most dependent. And Paul says they were all baptized. All 
who were entrusted to Moses' leadership or protection. Hence 
we do not need the admission of Carson, A. Campbell, etc., 
that infants w^ere in the Jewish church. All know that. 
When Christ came, when He gave His commission, for fifteen 
hundred years the Jews had made disciples from Gentiles. 
In all cases all infants were brought in with the parents, In 
no instance was an adult proselyte ever made in which the in- 
fant was left out. In all cases for fifteen hundred years, their 
babes were baptized. Under this state of things Christ says, 
" Of such is the Kingdom of Heaven." " Whoso receiveth 
one such little child in my name," etc. Under these circum- 
stances He gave the commission ; you, who in all cases for 
fifteen centuries have discipled infants with tiaeir parents, 
baptizing both always; one manner, one law, one ordinance 
for them as for you; who baptize yourselves and infants — go 
now and "disciple the Gentiles" as well as restore the lost 
sheep of the house of Israel, and baptize them ; just act as we 
have acted — recognize the infants as you have always done. 
Had Christ, Paul, and the twelve taught that in this respect a 
new law obtained, what a storm of indignation would have 
burst upon them on that issue ! Paul was repeatedly arrested, 
tried, answered to the charges, Acts xxii, xxiii, xxiv, xxv, 2, 
26, yet no such charge could be brought. But it is an- 
swered : 

1. There is no record w^here John baptized a babe. We 
answer (1) Kor is there where he ever baptized a woman. 
Yet is that a reason for not so doing? (2) ISTor is there any 
record that he baptized boys and girls; yet j^ou do. (3) He 
baptized unto repentance and that Christ might be manifest 
to Israel; hence so many advocates of infant baptism think 
that John did not baptize infants because his baptism was 
unlike that of Christ and his apostles. 

2. But there is no account where the apostles ever baptized 
infants. We answer, (1) I^or is there any record w^here any 
one of the twelve apostles ever baptized anybody. Not a 
word in the Bible tells us of a single case. (2) You baptize 



io8o The Great Carrollton Debate. 

children, jet yon find it no where said in the New Testament 
that children were to be baptized. (3) Infant circumcision 
was practiced in the apostolic church constantly during all the 
apostolic age. Yet there is no recorded case of an actual oc- 
currence of infant circumcision during the whole age. See 
Acts XV, 1-17; xxi entire. (4) There is no recorded case of 
a woman taking the Lord's Supper, and we know only full 
grown men, apostles at that, took it when it was ordained. 
Matt, xxvi, Mark xiv. Hence these objections amount to 
nothing at all. 

3. But Paul did baptize several parties, yet is there no 
record where he baptized an infant. Well, they and Paul 
baptized Stephen's household, baptized the household of 
Lydia, all the household of the jailer, the household of Ste- 
phanus — the old Apostolic Version, the Peshito, renders it 
^' her children," all his children were baptized," etc. Well, but 
they say there were no infants in any of the eight household 
baptisms. Very well, then, if you are sure of that, that is a 
sufficient reason why Paul did not baptize them. If there 
were babes in them, they were baptized. If there were none, 
that is the best reason why they were not. Just have it your 
own way. We have apostolic authority for baptizing " all that 
were in the house" of such believers as the jailer. 

As to the cases of baptism, records, etc., we add further: 
1 There is no record where any one of the twelve apostles 
was baptized. 

2. There is no record where Ananias, who baptized Paul, 
was baptized. 

3. There is no record where the seventv whom Christ sent 
out were baptized. 

4. There is no record where the one hundred and twenty 
of Acts i, were ever baptized. 

5. There is no record where John the baptizer was baptized. 

6. None where the vast multitude of devout people on 
whom the baptizing spirit fell. Acts ii, 5-9, were baptized 
with water. 

7. No record where Stephen or Philip was baptized, or any 
of the seven deacons. 

8. There is no record where any Jew was ever baptized in 
New Testament apostolic history, only such as had actually 
rejected Christ and his authority. This speaks volumes; a 
matter, like so much of the above facts, unnoticed by writers 
and critics. 

Iri the face of the omissions of so important a character as 
the above, had we a right to look for the special naming of 
infants in apostolic history ? 



Believer's Baptism. io8i 

Two points alone remain to be noticed. The objection is to 
proselyte baptism before the apostolic day, and the treatment 
the history of infant baptism received at Dr. Graves' hands, 
(the kind their writers always give it,) when I had no chance 
to reply, he reserving his views till his last negative speech, 
in violation of our rulep. I let it pass as I knew it could be 
attended to under this proposition. He said that the word 
Tertullian used [jyaidulus) meant a child and was meant sim- 
ply for large children, minors, etc. So Orchard, Ford, Kob- 
inson and their historians all treat the matter, and declare 
that not till in the fifth or sixth century was infant baptism 
prevalent in the church. 

To a historian who is honest, candid, such statements are 
so monstrous, so reckless, so wickedly grotesque, that one 
hardly knows how to characterize or reply to them. 

As to proselyte baptism, the facts, the quotations, etc., were 
formerly put on record. The objection to it is that Josephus, 
Philo, Onkelos, Jonathan, Ben Uzziel and the New Testa- 
ment do not name it. Their silence, therefore, is urged as 
the onl}^ proof against it. To this we reply: 

1. Silence is not proof against historic records that are 
reasonable and consistent. 

2. Josephus several times does refer to it undoubtedly, as 
well as the ]N"ew Testament, e. g.. John iii, 5. This was elab- 
orated in the former proposition, and never touched by the 
Doctor. 

3. Their silence, were it so, is no proof, since we saw so 
much silence on baptism already referred to. 

4. Onkelos, Jonathan, etc., were merely very literal trans- 
lators; the first of the Pentateuch, the other of the Prophets, 
and it did not lay in their province to discuss anything, but to 
translate the Bible into Chaldee. 

5. Eusebius, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomon, Evagrius, etc., 
and hosts of Fathers — Latin, Greek, Syriac — who wrote when 
all admit it was in full practice among all the Jews, never 
named it at all. The}?- discussed baptism, treated of it; Fathers 
like Origen, Pelagius, Caelestius, Augustine, etc., discuss 
why it was universally practiced. Yet in all, never refer to 
the practice of the Jews. Why could not M. Stuart and 
others have noticed that fact on the silence question? 

As Dr. Graves said what he did in his closing speech on 
the second proposition — Infant Baptism — we now quote from 
Pelagius, Augustine, Caelestius, to show you what is the tes- 
timony in the fourth century. Pelagius was a Briton, born 
and lived in England. He was accused of heresy on depravity. 
Augustine held to "total depravity, inherited depravity." Pie 



io82 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

appealed to the universal practice of the church on a well 
known rite — baptism of infants, and as he believed regenera- 
tion was effected by baptism, he appeals to the universality of 
the practice as a proof that the Bible taught depravity, and 
that infant baptism was practiced to effect their regeneration 
and remission of Adamic sin. Here are his words : " Which 
the whole body of the church holds, as delivered to them, in 
the case of little infants baptized; who certainly cannot yet 
believe with the heart unto righteousness. . . . 

And if any one does ask for divine authority in this matter, 
though that which the whole church {universa tenet ecclesia) 
practices, and which has not been instituted by councils, but 
was ever in use, etc., (Wall 1, 159), he tells of their " crying 
and noise," *' baptized when infants (infantes) or children,'* 
{pueri), interchanges infantes and j:)ar?;w^i of" those in whose 
hands they are brought," offered not merely by parents, but 
even masters of infant slaves offered them for baptism (1, 
165). In the face of hundreds of such tacts Baptist writers 
and Dr. Graves deny they were infants ! ! Pelagius, denying 
infant depi^vity, was. charged with being in a dilemma. You 
baptize infants — the whole church does. It was apostolic, not 
instituted by councils. Where is the ground for such prac- 
tices, if not for remission of Adamic sins ? Pelagius maintained 
that it was not for that, for infants were not guilty, and could 
not be; but that while they were not liable to hell, yet they 
could not enter the kingdom of heaven unless baptized. Here 
are his words ; " Men slander me as if I denied the sacrament 
to infants, or did promise the kingdom of heaven to some 
persons without the redemption of Christ, which is a thing 
that I never heard, no, not even any wicked heretic say." He 
then cites John iii. 5, with comments — in a word, " who can 
be so impious as to hinder infants from being baptized and 
being born again in Christ, and so make them miss the king- 
dom of heaven ? etc. Who is there so impious as to refuse to 
an infant, of any age whatever, (cujus libet aetatis)^ the common 
redemption of mankind ? " etc. (Wall 1, 279). Coelestius, the 
follower of Pelagius, but more extreme in denying depravity, 
says : •' We own that infants {infantes) ought, according to 
the rule of the universal church, and according to the sentence 
of the gospel [i. e., John iii. 5, as they held it], to be baptized 
for the forgiveness of sins." (Wall 1, 280-1). He then urges 
it is not original or derived sin, Adamic, but admits of such 
words " remission of sins," to infants, " that we may not seem 
to make two sorts of baptism." We could multiply endlessly, 
almost, these quotations from nearly all the fathers, but it is 
needless. ITo man of candor and scholarship has denied or 



\ Believer's Baptism. 1083 

will qaestioii these facts, for the language is too plain. Notice 
how they speak. Origen speaks of them as " but a day old," 
and " have no sin of their own," as do others. Chrysostom 
says, (ta brephoe), " Infants that have no sin are baptized." 

They interchange parvulus Si little child, diminutive of par- 
vus, a child, with infans, an infant. Where Pelagius says par- 
vuli, his friend and Admirer says infantes, infants. Their op- 
ponent, Augustine, tells how their mothers carried, brought, 
presented them " in their hands," that they had no choice, in- 
terchanges infantes and panmli, infants and little children. E^ot 
only this, but as Tertullian lived in J^orth Africa, hence Pe- 
lagius, of England, had never heard of his short-lived opposi- 
tion. Origen, who lived :n JSTorth Africa, the most learned 
of ail Greek fathers, gives their age " as a clay " when needing 
baptism. In N^orth Africa, where, at that time more colleges, 
more schools, more extensive libraries, more grammarians and 
teachers flourished than on any spot on the globe ; v^^here, A. 
D. 381, the Bishop of Alexandria was as influential almost as 
an emperor; in T^orth Africa, A. D. 251-53, the council of 
sixty-six bishops decided unanimously that it was not nec- 
essary to defer the baptizing of infants till they were over 
eight days old, the question being put by Fidus w^hether they 
should wait that long, that being the only question on the sub- 
ject before them. 

This is the most intellectual, cultivated part of the church 
in that age. The great Cyprian, the most noted of all Latin 
fathers of that age by far, was in it. No discussion was sprung, 
no question raised as to its apostolicity. No part of Christen- 
dom is hinted at as not practicing it. This is A. D. 253. They 
name the ages of the infants " four or five days," not necessary 
to wait till they were eight days old. Yet Baptist writers, 
published and eulogized and endorsed by Dr. Graves, tell us 
that only minors, people under age simply, are meant b}^ the 
pai^vuli i\nd infantes of these fathers ! Now, the church unani- 
mously baptized, A. D. 253, infants. Origen, writing A. D. 
215, shows it w^as unanimous in his day, and he, the greatest 
tourist of his age, the child of Christian ancestors since the 
days of the apostles. Tertullian, A. D. 190, shows it to have 
been universally prevalent in his day by the manner of hi.s 
opposition and style of argument. See my speech on history 
of it, second proposition. Irenaeus, A. D. 166 to 180, Hip- 
polytus, 220, on heresies, never hint it as an innovation or 
heresy. So it came not in practice in their day. Irenaeus, 
born four years before John the Apostle died, names it as a 
universal practice in his day, under the term regenerated — 
" infants, etc., are regenerated unto God." On the testimony 



1084 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

of Irenaeus, Tertullian and Origen, we refer to the speech 
above alluded to where it is full. We see that infant baptism 
was in the church everywhere in Origen's day, Tertullian's 
day, Irenaeus' day. It could not have come in during any 
period subsequent to the apostolic day without producing 
a vastly different record and series of facts from what we have, 
for it implied a complete change,!. In the doctrines of the 
church ; 2. In its practices and the design of its ordinances, 
from the immersion stand-point. 

Dr. Graves objects that it is against the symbolic import of 
baptism. But here he errs, as usual, on this subject. He 
makes baptism a symbol of death, burial, resurrection — that 
it is an actual entrance into the church, a gate, a door, and a 
sign. Ingham and others make baptism to be seven things ; 
indeed, they make it a little ijod. It is everything — a bundle 
of absurdities and contradictions. Confusion reigns here. 
E"ow water, the world over, in all ages, has symbolized inno- 
cence. So David, and later Pilate, washed their hands, sym- 
bolizing innocence. All history shows this. Hence it comes 
to represent the pouring on us of the Spirit, by which we as 
transgressors are made pure that we may be innocent before 
God. From the beginning of baptism in Moses' day it sym- 
bolized that innocence and qualification for approach to God 
that all need. Hence priests and people approaching the altar 
had to baptize or be baptized before going into God's pres- 
ence in the tabernacle or temple. But all infants are inno- 
cent before God. They inherit a fallen, depraved nature, and 
have that moral taint which all men have; but it is not guilt 
or sin in the sense of transgression — ^is not sinful. Christ re- 
moved all condemnation that came as the effect of Adam's 
transgression, as Paul (Rom. iii. entire,) teaches. Hence we 
are responsible for the deeds done in the body. We teach 
that no infant is in infancy liable to be lost. All are in a 
saved relation, and can only be lost by actual transgressions. 
As to what takes place in them or us in death God has said 
nothing, and to be wise above what is written is very unwise. 

Hence infants are the most proper of allsubjects of baptism. 
In baptizing adults they may be fit subjects or may not. We 
can't read their hearts. But infants I know are innocent, and 
'' of such is the kingdom of heaven." 

Making baptism a symbol of death, etc., 

1. Violates its whole historic import, for never on earth, 
among any people, did it have such meaning. 

2. It represented the Spirit's action in purifying man's moral 
nature, the source of life, not of death. 



Believer's Baptism. 1085 



J5 



3. John's baptism was "with water," "unto repentance 
not death. Its general object was that *' Christ might be made 
manifest to Israel" 

4. Dr. Graves says there was no church in John's day, hence 
baptism could not be the door or initiatory rite into a thing 
that did not exist. He admits that those who first constituted 
the church came in without this process ; were organized on 
the Mount, where no one was baptized. Where, then, comes 
all this nonsense about initiation, initiatory rite of baptism ? 
etc. But he says our Discipline has it in the ritual. But we 
can use that or not; it is not our faith, our creed, our doctrine. 
Some believe it, most of us do not. I repudiate it out and 
out — the initiatory business. 

Look, then, here are the facts : 

For 1,500 years infant baptism was the practice. For 1,500 
years infants were a part of the church. We could carry it 
further back, as formerly we did, but need not. For 1,500 
years all Gentiles coming into the Jewish church had their 
infants discipled. No exception ever occurred. With these 
precedents, Christ, a Jew, commands twelve Jews to "go, 
disciple all the Gentiles," as already all Jews had been 
included in their field of labor, (Matt. x. entire), baptizing all 
they could disciple. Hence, as the great Dr. Bledsoe truly 
says, the commission ordains infant baptism. It does not 
specify any class. It does not specifically name any class. 
But such a command, under such existing practices and doc* 
trines, was a continuation of it by positive command. But to 
establish Dr.- Graves's position he must 

1. Destroy the church in which Moses, Abraham, Abel, 
Christ, the twelve, the sevent}^, the one hundred and twenty, 
the devout and pious on Pentecost, before the three thousand 
were converted, had membership. 

2* Organize a new one, which he can never do. 

3. On radically diflerent principles from all the past, 

4. That the principles are so radically revolutionary that 
they eject all infants. 

5. He should then show us at what age a child dare be bap- 
tized — becomes so responsible that its faith entitles it to bap- 
tism — to make the matter safe to it as well as to the church. 
Yet not one of these things has been done, nor can be. We 
have demonstrated the fact that the commission was as much 
a command to baptize infants as it was adult believers. 



io86 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SECOND SPEECH. 



Mr. President. — Paul evidently had this idea in his mind 
when he asked were ye baptized eis ton onoma, into the name 
of Paul? and said "I thank God that L baptized none of you 
save Crispus and Gains, lest any should say I baptized eis to 
emon onoma^ into ray own name." 

" Is Christ Divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul ? And I baptized also the household of Stephanas : 
besides, I know not whether I baptized any other." — I Cor. i. 13, 16. 

From the force of this expression eis to onoma^ alone, we learn 

that Paul baptized no infant or unbeliever in the households 

of Crispus, Gains, or Stephanas, for he baptized into the name 

of the Trinity, and no infant or unbeliever could make the 

requisite profession. 

In I Cor. X. 2, we meet with the expression eis ton monsen 
Ebaptizante. If mj opponent will again claim that infants 
should be baptized because they were in the families of the 
Israelites when they were here baptized, I answer, his argu- 
ment proves too much; for it would embrace all ages and all 
characters, with the bodies of the dead, for they were carrying 
these along with them. But here starts up the eis ton monsen^ 
like sword of cherubim turning every way. Only those were 
baptized here who could be and were baptized eis ton monsen, 
" the fathers" alone^adults of Israel. I will read one or two 
authorities to fix the force of the phrase '■'eis to onoma" in your 
minds. 

" Ms hen soma.'^ 

" Is Christ divided ? was Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in 
the name of Paul ? " — I Cor. xii. 13. 



The apostle does not say some of the members of this 
church had been baptized " eis hen soma^^ but that all who had 
been baptized had so been, and whatever this phrase implies, 
every one baptized up to this time in Corinth had made the 
profession or voluntarily entered the relation. Now then by a 
reference to the context, we learn this phrase means that in 
one and the same spirit that dwelt within and animated them, 
i. e., the spirit of faith and of obedient submission to Christ, 
they had all been baptized into one body — the Church — and 
had been made to drink into the same spirit 



Believer's Baptism. 1087 

From all these similar phrases there is no avoiding the con- 
clusive force of eis to onoma in the commission. It carries 
along with it two ideas, an immersion and a 'profession of per- 
sonal faith. 

But returning to the commission v^^e have another command : 
" di daskentes autous,'^ " teaching them.'' All are agreed that 
this verb means to teach. If the position I have previously 
noticed, that baptizontes, is a modal participle following and 
explaining the verb matheteusafe, which was taken in order to 
avoid the necessity of instructing the infants before baptism, 
then is this participle modal also and it certainly demands 
that the subjects of baptism be taught. Teaching themj 
whom? Evidently all those who had been baptized ! If they 
were commanded to baptize an infant they were equally com- 
manded to teach it,— to do what? Observe ail things whatso- 
ever I have commanded you. Among these ''all things," no 
one will deny that the Lord's Supper was included. They 
were then to teach all whom they had authority to baptize, 
infants as well as adults, the unbeliever as well as the saint, 
to observe the Lord^s Supper Will Eld. Ditzler accept the 
logical conclusion of this premise? He will not carry out the 
commission as he interpret?; it. He will not bring his mind- 
less infants to the Supper, and teach them the meaning of the 
emblems and give them to eat. Why not? Think of it, he 
denies to more than half his legitimate members one of the 
ordinances of the church. The Catholics administer only one 
kind to the laity. Methodists deny both to the majority of 
their own members. 

Let us notice the mountain strength of this commission 
against infants and unbelievers. 

1. It commands that the subject should be discipled, Chris- 
tianized, which alone can be done by instruction. But the 
infant cannot be discipled, and therefore it is excluded by the 
very terms of the law. It cannot be baptized. To do so 
would be to violate the express letter of the law. 

2. Those taught, discipled, must be baptized into the name 
of the Trinity. I have demonstrated to you that an infant 
cannot be baptized into the name of the Trinity or into any 
other name or thing on earth, for the phrase implies and de- 
mands a profession of faith and subjection, which no infant 
and no unregenerate person can make, and therefore no infant 
or unregenerate person can possibly be baptized under this 
commission. To them it would be a meaningless ceremony, 
to every intelligent Christian profanation of the ordinance, 
and in the eye of God a gross violation of the law of baptism* 



ic33 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. Those baptized are to be immediately taught to observe 
Christ's commandments and infants can neither be tauo^ht nor 
can they obey, and therefore, are no less than four times ex- 
cluded by the very express terms of the law, sufficient evidence 
to my mind of its verbal inspiration. The Omnicient Savior 
knew what service the advocates of infant baptism would try 
to force this commission into, and hence every word he used 
he made a most effectual guard and prohibition of it. 

If it is claimed that it means only on the authority of the 
Trinit}^, let them show the authority not in example, but the 
express command of Christ, for so our proposition reads — 

BELIEVERS IN ChRIST ARE THE ONLY SUBJECTS ChRIST COM- 
MANDED HIS APOSTLES TO BAPTIZE. 

Mr. President, I am worn out with my opponent's triffing 
with propositions he is professing to discuss by refusing to 
define the terms he uses, and using terms of double or ambig- 
uous meanings, and always discussing some other proposition 
than the one really in debate. He has done it in every instance 
in open violation of the rules governing this debate, and he 
has observed the same course thus far on this proposition. 
Kow with all the emphasis of earnestness, I demand that he 
discuss this proposition and show us when he rises, where 
Christ has commanded i\\Q baptism of any but professed believers. 
There is no place for inferences or analogies or examples, 
under this proposition, but for commands only, and only for 
Christ's commands at that. Will he show one, and will vou 
all listen for it. 

I will now read the law as recorded by Mark : 

^' Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He 
that believeth and is baptized shall be saved ; but he that believeth not 
shall be damned." — Mark, xvi. 15, 16. 

How divinely transparent the meaning of this law. Lan- 
guage could not be more specific, unambiguous, and plain to 
the most simple, as the way-faring man, though a fool, need 
not err in understanding it, and would not doubt one moment 
as to whom Christ commanded the apostles to baptize. 

There is a principle of interpretation in all law, which isas 
old as the Justinian Code. It reads, ^' expressio unius est exclusio 
alterius. The specification of one thing prohibits every other. 
^ow apply this to each phrase of this commission. 

" GoJ' He forbade them by this to remain in Jerusalem 
or settle permanently on any one place. He constituted his 
apostles itinerant missionaries, and forbade them to become 
pastors. They were missionaries most emphatically. Preach, 
karuxate, proclaim^ as does a herald or public crier. This for- 



Believer's Baptism. 1089 

bade tberu to write it out, or read it, however handsomely 
and elegantly they might do it — '■'■preach the Gospel. The man 
who reads carefully prepared essays from the pulpit deceives 
himself if he imagines that he is preaching. Kitrusso means to 
proclaim with eye and voice united, to the people as a herald 
is wont to do, and as Jonah did to the i^inevites and as Christ 
did to the multitudes. The pulpit has lost its power over the 
people, and the houses of worship are emptied through the 
violation of this command — ''Preach the Gospel." 'Not philos- 
ophy, or poetry, or science and worldly wisdom, and the theo- 
ries of men, but the Gospel, the good news of the Kingdom^ — sal- 
vation through^'- the crucified one.'^ 

He evidently did not mean those creatures who are not the 
subjects of gospel address — -beasts and birds — nor to idiots or 
infants. It being as impossible to preach to them, as it w^ould 
be to stov'^ks and stones. No reasonable man will say they, in- 
fants, are included in this commission, and we will presently 
see that they are not or they are all lost. "Pie that believeth — 
This is equivalent to baptize all who believe the gospel you 
preach — -believe with the heart unto righteousness. According 
to our rule, Christ forbade them to baptize an infant or unbe- 
liever as certainly as he did bells and graveyards. Is there 
any doubt as to whom the apostles were commanded here to 
baptize? Is there a rational child that could mistake, here? 
Was ever an order more simple, more plain? idiocy alone 
could misunderstand it — willfulness alone could pervert it. 
Does not Christ specify the character to be baptized — "he that 
believeth," not all to whom they might preach by any means, 
but those of them who should believe. 

''Immersing them." This is a specific prohibition of the 
rites men have brought in as substitutes, as sprinkling or 
pouring water upon the heads of the subjects. To perform 
any other act than the o)}^ he commanded, is a palpable viola- 
tion of his express law. 

That the term baptize means primarily and specifically to 
immerse, all lexicographers and scholars of any note are 
agreed, says Moses Stuart; and to perform any other act in- 
stead, is to violate the law ; every other act is prohibited. 
Immersing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and 
of the Holy Spirit. Now I sumbit it to you, Mr. President, 
and to every man, woman and child, whether, if the Apostles 
had substituted other three names for the adorable ones, 
would they not have palpably violated the law? Suppose 
they had baptized into the name of Shadrach, Meshech, 
and Abednego, would they not have violated and profaned 
68 



logo The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the law ? Were they not forbiclen to baptize in any other 
names and simply because these names were specified. 

When God commanded Noah to make the ark of gopher 
wood, did he not forbid him to make it of any other? would 
he not have violated the command had he made it of white 
pine or hickory? Apply this self-evident rule. 

In Matthew's commission Christ specifies the discipled as the 
ones to be baptized. Did he not forbid them to baptize the 
undiscipled ? the untaught? Mark says he commanded those 
believing, to be baptized. Did he not therefore, forbid the 
baptism in His name of those who do not and those who cannot 
believe? you know, and every thinking man knows, that he 
did. I therefore afiirm, and no man can successfully den}^ it, 
and no man would do his intelligence and tair-mindedness any 
credit by attempting to deny, that Christ positively forbade the 
baptism of any but a believer. To say that this law does not 
prohibit the baptism of an unbeliever and of a non-believer, is 
to say that positive law means nothing. 

If a cloud is supposed by any one to rest upon the law, ow- 
ing to translation or otherwise, then we may properly ask if 
the same lawgiver has indicated his will elsewhere touching 
the same thing or by his own acts or his practices. Though 
there rests no cloud of doubt or ambiguity upon the com- 
mission, I will refer briefly to these other sources of proof. 

The first officer He ordained to administer His baptism, was 
John the Baptist. "He that sent me to baptize — immerse in 
water." The act that this officer performed was the first in- 
stance of Christian baptism within the lids of the Bible We 
have not the very words of the order, yet we can learn whom 
Christ authorized to be baptized by observing those whom He 
did baptize. 

We find he observed the very order found in the commis- 
sion. 1. He first preached to the people. 2. He baptized 
only those who became disciples to his doctrine, and gave 
him satisfactory proofs of repentance toward God and faith in 
Christ, and none others. Others came and requested to be 
baptized, but he forbade them until they brought forth fruits 
meet for repentance. That he baptized no infants, is univer- 
sally confessed. I know not a Pedobaptist of any note that 
claims that John baptized infants. This is clear and con- 
ceded. But Alford and other Pedobaptist scholars agree 
with me that the commission was but an enlargement, with- 
out change of act or subject, of this first law to John. There- 
fore it was intended to be limited to believers, if any one 
claims a doubt. 



Believer's Baptism. 1091 

2. Christ taught upon this earth three and a half years, and 
in all his public ministry, we find no instance of his practicing 
infant baptism. They brought them to him as they were wont 
to bring their children to those whom they esteemed as 
prophets and holy men, praying Him that He would lay His 
bands upon them and pray, i. e., invoke a blessing upon them, 
and this he did; and we find his disciples rebuking those who 
brought them, thus proving beyond question that they had 
not hitherto received infants to baptism or into their number. 
Here seems to have been the place for Christ to have insti- 
tuted infant baptism, if he intended it for the practice of His 
church, or if it was already substantially in existence under 
another form or name, as circumcision, or proselyte baptism, 
to have explained the change of any former rite to that of 
water baptism, but he did not, and therefore he did not de- 
sign to have such a practice known in his churches. 

3. But then we have the plain, primitive teachings of Christ 
upon this very question. J^icodemus, a Ruler and Rabbi, 
came to him by night, to learn from his own lips the qualifi- 
cations that he must possess to be his disciple, and a member 
or citizen of his earthly kingdom. As certainly as Mcode- 
mus believed Jesus to be the Messiah of Israel, he did believe 
that he had come to set up a visible Kingdom upon it, and 
that he required all his friends to enter and possess it. All 
the Prophets that had prophesied of the Messiah, had foretold 
that he would establish a visible Kingdom on this earth at his 
coming. The Covenants with Abraham, and with David, 
secured to him both a kingdom and a throne, here on this 
earth. I^owhere in all the Bible is it so much as intimated 
that Christ has ever had or ever is to have a Church, or a 
Kingdom in heaven — or anywhere else than upon this earth. 
Christ's Church or Kingdom, in the skies, or in heaven, is a 
mere idealism — a fancy as unsubstantial as it is unscriptural 
and absurd. The idea has done more to confuse and enable 
false teachers to misteaeh and pervert the Word of God, than 
any one thing known to me. And the idea that the phrase 
" Kingdom of God" in John iii. 3 and 5 means a kingdom of 
some sort in the skies, or in the heavens, has wrought a ten- 
fold greater evil on this earth, than all the wars or woes, 
floods or famines that have ever wasted or desolated it. 

It has been from the beginning the foundation of Ritualism 
of every form and phase. It was the first corruption of the 
fundamental doctrines of Christianity subsequent to the death 
of the apostles. It gave birth to the doctrine of baptismal re- 
generation, the necessity of baptism to salvation and to infant 
baptism. In every Pedobaptist creed or Ritual, you will find 



1092 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

this passage quoted in order to prove the necessity net only of 
the baptism of adults but of newly born infants, in order to 
their salvation, "the Kingdom of God" taken to mean the pres- 
ence of God in the "heaven of heavens." It is a matter of 
profound mortification and regret, that some Baptists have 
given up the faith of their historical ancestors and learned the 
language of Ashdod and Philistia touching this passage — 
That Christ did not mean by the "Kingdom of God" here, the 
abode of his Father or a kingdom supernal, we learn from his 
own words in verse 12. If I have told you earthly things, and 
ye believe not, how shall ye believe if I tell you of heavenly 
things." This kingdom was one of the earthly things, existing 
in connection with this earth, as opposed to something Aearen?^/? 
not connected with this earth. It must therefore, have been 
that kingdom that had suffered violence from the days of 
John — it must have been that kingdom that publicans and 
harlots were entering, and w^hich priest and scribe were attempt- 
ing to shut up — it was then for the first time "at hand" that it 
had "come nigh", yea, upon the Jew^ish people and was there 
among them and offered to them. This fact admitted, because 
it is a fact, there we learn the only and essential conditions 
of membership according to the will of Christ its King and 
law-giver. 

I. In every case, a birth from above, a Spiritual renovation 
of our nature and affections, makes us as much new creatures 
as though we had been reborn naturally. This is a prerequi- 
site in ever}^ case. Then 2, in addition to this, and because the 
birth of the Spirit does not introduce any one into any Kingdom that 
Christ owns as his, or had any knowledge of — such an idea or fan- 
cy had not been originated in His day. In order to enter his 
kingdom to become organically incorporated constituted into 
His body, which is His church, a man must be born of water 
— immersed, baptized. For this, like the birth of the Spirit, 
was among the things denominated by Christ as earthly, be- 
cause in connection with man and things — his earthly king- 
dom — that are on the earth and the effects of which were 
known, seen and felt here. 

This declaration of Jesus to Kicodemus forever determines 
who can be baptized by His will and command, the truly re- 
generated by the Holy Spirit onh', those really born again, 
and from above. Baptism 13 not appointed, as Wesley and Camp- 
bell and all Ritualists and Episcopals from the days of Tei^ 
tullian have taught to be the means ordinary or particular hy 
which this new birth is to be effected or secured, but it is a 
Spiritual relation that must, in every case, exist and be cb- 
joyed, before any one, young or old, is entitled to receive water 



Believer's Baptism. 1093 

baptism, the only act by which one enters the Kingdom or 
Church of Christ. This one passage, rightly interpreted, is 
the death of infant baptism as it is of baptismal regeneration 
as taught by Catholics and Campbellites, by both the Protest- 
ant and Methodist Episcopal Hierarchies — falsely called 
churches. Christ, in giving his commission, certainly did not 
contradict his teachings recorded here. But finally, the design 
and essence of Christian baptism can only be fulfilled by a 
believer in Christ, and therefore, Christ could not have com- 
maned the baptism of unbelievers, and mindless infants, since, 
as subjects, they would render his ordinance worse than a 
meaningless ceremony. The essence of Christian baptism is 
the profession of a personal, not a proxorial or parental faith in 
Christ, and an entire consecration to his service. Neither 
infants nor unbelievers can profess this faith, or relation, for 
it does not exist The design is to symbolize the death, burial 
and resurrection of Christ, and personal union of the subject 
with Chi'ist in these — death, burial and resurrection with 
Christ, and to walk in a new life. I^either infants nor unregen- 
erate persons can meet the symbols of Christian baptism, and 
it was not therefore designed for them. This is confessed by 
hosts of the most eminent Pedobaptists. 

Against this argument my opponent has no defence what- 
ever, and has made none whatever. Admit an infant or an 
adult sinner to baptism, and what a farce you enact in the 
name ofCiodand in the sight of all men. There is no faith 
in Christ, no death to sin, no resurrection to newness of life, 
no rising with Christ through the faith of the operation of 
God, no renewing of the Holy Spirit, and no answer of a good 
conscience towards God in connection with it. I conclude 
then in the language of a distinguished Pedobaptist, Dr. L. 
Lange, professor of the University of Jena : "All attempts to 
make out baptism from the ISTew Testament fails. It is 

UTTERLY OPPOSED TO THE SPIRIT OF THE APOSTOLIC AGE, AND TO 
THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF THE NeW TESTAMENT." Infant 

Baptism^ p. 101, and in the language of Lange, the renowned 
commentator : " Would the Protestant Church fulfill and 
attend to its final destiny, the baptism of new-born children 
must be abolished. * * * It cannot, on any point of view, be 
justified by the Holy Scriptures." — Hist. Prot., pp. 34, 35. 

(1) " No religious service can be acceptable to God if He has not en- 
joined it." — [Dr. J. Brown. 

(2) " There is not any express command in the Holy Scriptures con- 
cerning the baptism of infants. — [Stapferus' Theol., Polem. cap. 3, § 1647 

(3) Therefore Infant Baptism cannot be acceptable to God. 



1094 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S SECOND REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators : — Dr. Graves now is in the lead, 
can just select his own methods, 'New Testament, Old, orany. 
We will be with him in each, in all. 

But now, when the Doctor has his own way, was going to 
explode everything in this question, lo, he simply relies on the 
light and airy weapons he had up before, called syllogisms ! 
Surely Dr. Graves knows that not a single one of these asser- 
tions is a proper syllogism, not one. He assumes as true a 
matter he has not shown to be wrong, cannot. Yet here is 
what he calls a syllogism : " Infant baptism is contrary to 
Scripture, infant baptism is wrong," etc., and then proceeds 
to make deductions 1 Now he has just that one thing to do, 
prove that it is wrong, prove that it is contrary to Scripture. 
If he will do that, he has no need of syllogistic forms to enforce 
it ; we are crushed on this proposition the moment he does 
that. But that he has not done; no, not even made a iiaw in 
all my argument, not to name a breach. He has not disproved 
a single point, exposed a blunder or error anywhere. 

He names H. W. Beecher's testimony against infant baptism 
as a Scriptural ordinance. Who has any respect, or ever had, 
for Beecher's theological views ? Not Dr. Graves or myself 
certainly, nor any other student or scholar. Beecher is a fine 
declaimer, good exhorter, but never knew what theology was, 
nor does he care. 

As to authorities, the vast majority hold it to be Scriptural. 
Nearly all the greatest so hold. Lightfoot, Buxtortf, Schaet- 
gennlus, Wetstein, Witsius, Beza, A. Clarke, Watson, Wes- 
ley, Calvin, Wall, Alford, etc. 

As to facts, it is far better to submit to our audience the 
facts in the cases, and let them decide, rather than to tell 
them what so and so say of it, when two to one, often five, ten, 
twenty to one, are of the opposite view. Hence the proper 
way is to submit to the people the facts, the Scriptural argu- 
m<^nts, and let them weigh the facts for themselves. This has 
been our course during all this debate, and only quoting the 
authors where lexical use is called for, real historic records, 
or to oJBTset where he quotes authorities. The Bible is the 
book to settle this question. Next to that, early history when 
it was so near the apostolic age as to be decisively forcible. 



Believer's Baptism. 1095 

He says you cannot infer law. That is not in dispute. We 
can infer the meaning, the intention of law, infer our relation 
to, and duty under it. That is the point. The commission 
is the law. But everything is there left to inference. Go, on 
foot, on horse, carriage, cars, any way possible, go. Disciple 
as you have always been accustomed to disciple in the church, 
it is the church by its Head, Christ, that sends you. As to 
inferences, 

1. You immerse wholly on inference. The word is not in 
the !N"ew Testament. You infer from your understanding of 
its import, that o^' its many meanings, that is the one to be 
seized on and held as the meaning of the law. 

2. You and I are baptized on inference. The command is 
to the baptizer, not to the baptized. Yet by legitimate in- 
ference, we feel the force of the command. 

3. It is you that rely on inference. We proved that there 
was a spiritual church, with infants in it, and they were bap- 
tized. You turn round and infer from John iii. 5, Heb. viii. 
9, 1. That that church was destroyed. 2. A new church 
organized. 3. On radically different principles, leaving out 
the infants. There is where heavy inferences come in, not a 
word of fact supporting it. 

The way each has acted on each new proposition shows who 
is satisfied, who not, with how they went. We did not fill up 
time exhorting. 

As to his tract, it was settled in a former proposition. He 
has not dared to trv to meet the facts. 

As to express authority, the commission does not expressly 
name any class whatever. It does not expressly name men, 
women, boys, girls, children, yet you baptize all these on 
inference. Indeed, literally it would exclude all Jews from 
baptism. It reads, " Disciple {ta ethnee) the Gentiles, baptizing 
them," etc. Yet from precedents and teaching you infer it 
includes Jews also, and very properly. Yet it is all inference. 
Now why do these men so disparage inference when they are 
so dependent on it ? He has not an express word for immerse 
for baptism, yet he will deter you from his church on an 
inference of his own. He has no express mention of a woman 
taking the sacrament in the I^ew Testament. Yet he admits 
them. 

He quotes Dr. Johnson that a disciple is " one who learns." 
So we showed that Timothy was taught, and " learned " the 
Scripture lessons taught him [avo brephous) from infancy. 
2 Tim. iii. 15, 16. Hence, according to Paul, you can disciple 
infants. Hence the commission commands infant baptism, by 
his own admission. 



1096 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

He says in our baptism we profess our faith, and quotes Eom. 
vi. 8, 4, to prove it. 

1. It says not a word about protessing of faith. Hence 
he makes an inference on an inference, jet has no support for 
either. 

2. He cannot find where the Scriptures say that we profess 
our faith in our baptism, nor anything of the kind — not even 
the spurious verse of Acts viii. 37. 

But he now makes the celebrated passage — "buried by bap- 
tism into death" now to be simply a profession made in bap- 
tism. He gives up mode as its import really — the "into" is 
simply a profession of faith ! 'Now if this is "literal water" 
baptism, then it is saving, regenerating, for it puts us "into 
Christ, into His death," and by it we are "born together in the 
likeness of His death." It does not say baptized into a pro- 
fession of Christ. By his own position they profess Christ, 
faith in him, yea, regeneration, before they are baptized. Hence 
they have already professed faith in him before baptized, from 
his stand-point. You see his views of this passage are utterly 
untenable — all wrong, and he has gone back on his former 
exposition of it. We clearly understood him to affirm that 
by the baptism of Hom. vi. 3, 4, people were "baptized into 
Christ." 

And now comes up the old objection that it is not named 
in the Xew Testament. This we met already and may touch 
it in our last speech again, AVe pointed to the fact that infant 
circumcision was practiced during the whole of the apostolic 
age, yet not a single case of such circumcision is named or 
recorded durins: that as^e. 

Sis comes up once more. It often means in respect, in re- 
ference to, expressing a mental aim or intention. Its primary 
meaning is "motion towards, to, unto or into." So Liddell 
and Scott, Kohner, Passow, Butmann tell us, and all the facts 
and philology prove it. 

We have now replied to all we deemed worthy of notice. 
Indeed, all these matters had been gone over before. 

I want to call your attention to one point more. God does 
not propose to jnstify in being a sinner. As soon as infants 
are old enough to know duty — know right from wrong, they 
should refrain from the wrons^ — never commit wickedness. 
You cannot deny this. He demands that we serve him all 
our days. Kow, if you bring up children outside of the 
church, you not only assume that those years are to be spent 
anions^ transo;'ressors, but you throw the mertia of our nature 
— the indisposition to change we all more or less feel, where 
an outward transition is required — all that you throw on the 



Believer's Baptism. 1097 

side of the evil one. It is the duty of all people to do duty to 
God all their lives. If all did so, the seductive evils that 
draw the young into sin would cease, of course. As soon as 
we are old enough to do wrong — be capable of moral action, 
we ought to serve God. All agree here. But we make this 
point there. 

1. Our prejudices, sympathies, feelings, the bias of our na- 
tures at the tenderest age, in infancy, have a great deal to do 
with all after life. They enter into our successes and failures 
of life far beyond what most uersons realize. 1^J youv course 
all is lost here. 

2. From your stand-point you cannot tell just Avhen a per- 
son should be baptized. You have a margin between real in- 
fancy up to five 3' ears old — between five and seven to nine 
years you do not know what to do with. You can never be 
certain just when people should — i. e children — be baptized. 

3. Is your duty in the church or out? You are to bring up 
your children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. 
!N^ow it does not say let them run in vice, learn evil awhile, 
then hope for their conversion. Bring them up, train up a 
child in the way it should go. Is this duty in the church or 
out? We believe our duties are marked out in the church, 
and surely to do those duties to our children is among the 
most important of our duties. 

We turn again now to Prosel^^te baptism : 

All the congregation of Israel shall keep it. And when a stranger shall 
sojourn with thee, and will keep tlie passover to the Lord, let all his males 
be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it ; and he shall be 
as one that is born in the land : for no uncircumcised person shall eat 
thereof. One law shall be to him that is home-born, and unto the stranger 
that sojourneth among you. — Ex xii, Jp-J^d. 

And if a stranger shall sojourn among you, and will keep the passover 
unto the Lord ; according to the ordinance of the passover, and according 
to the manner thereof, so shall he do ; ye shall have one ordinance, both 
for the stranger, and for him that was born in the land. — Num. ix^ 14. 

One ordinance shall be both for you of the congregation, and also for 
the stranger that sojourneth with you, an ordinance for ever in your gen- 
erations : as ye are-so shall the stranger be before the Lord. One law and 
one manner shall be for you, and for the stranger that sojourneth with 
you. — Num. xv, 15^ 16. 

Jesus answered and said unto him, verily, verily, I say unto thee. Ex- 
cept a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God. — John Hi, 5. 

And they asked him, and said unto him, Why baptizest thou then, if 
thou be not that Christ, nor Elias, neither that iDrophet ? — John i, 25. 

"Also he is said to be regenerated and born again who is thus made a 
proselyte even as a new born babe, and all his former connection (of blood) 
is done away (passes away) or ceases. — Selden ii, 785. 

We gave quotations in Proposition II, from the Rabbins- 
need not repeat it now. 

But, is it reasonable that the Jews would not allow a Gentile 
to touch them, or any unclean thing brought into contact with 



1098 The Great Carrolltox Debate. 

tliem, not come from the market place, Mark vii, 3, 4; not eat, 
Luke xi, 38, without baptizing, yet receive Gentiles without it. 

"One law," "one custom," " one ordinance" shall be to 
Jews and Gentiles. This law was made before baptism was 
commanded. Hence all alike had to be baptized. Now the 
Jews baptized all proselytes, all their infants from Moses till 
the commission was given. Hence when the commission 
was given by Christ a Jew, to twelve Jews, one of whom so 
rigidly adhered to the Jewish prejudicies that not for eight 
years would he go among Gentiles — Peter — they would carry 
out the commission as Jews. ISTothing was more constantly 
thought of in connection w^ith duty by a Jew than his duty to 
his children. Hence, in the light of existing facts it was 
equivalent to a command to baptize infants. 

Again — by your own interpretation of the word disciple — 
to learn — it don't say what they are to learn, but we infer it is 
to learn Gospel truth, duty, obligation, etc. I^ow suppose we 
accept your explanation — that disciple implies necessarily to 
teach — that to be discipled one must be taught, why still we 
have the commission on our side. How old do you have to be 
ere you can be taught — taught most valuable lessons? Infants 
can be taught at two and a half, three, and three and a half 
and four years old. Then, by your interpretation, such are 
subjects of discipleship, and you are commanded to baptize them. 
Then Paul puts it in evidence, already quoted, that people can 
be, and were discipled from, infancy. So Paul tells you then 
that the commission commands the baptism of infants. Moses 
puts it in evidence that infants a month o^dand upwards, I^um. 
iii. 28, were put into a preparatory state of discipleship. Thus 
the whole Bible is with us on that Doint. 

JL 

All the efforts of the Doctor, persistent as they have been, 
failed to break the force of these facts. We showed, in a 
former speech, that perpetuity of the church — the prophecies 
telling that it should exist forever. Christ was to " come to 
Zion." The Gentiles were to be converted to her. She was 
to inherit them. She was to ardorn herself with them as a 
bride doeth. She was to be given as a covenant of salvation 
to the ends of the earth. If the old church of God ceased, 
all these, and hosts of like prophecies failed and never can be 
fulfilled. We saw from the ^NTew Testament they were most 
literally fulfilled. Christ came — preached in the church — used 
the term chur.ch in its familiar sense, both as embracing all 
God's family, and the p-mc^i^/es involved in his church. Matt. 
xvi. 17, and as applied to a synagogue assembly or local con- 
gregation — Matt, xviii. 17-19. 

We never find Christ organizing a local congregation. He 



Believer's Bapsism. 1099 

is reforming, restoring, repairing, gathering together the scat- 
tered sheep. He sends out twelve to preach. The harvest is 
great; praj for more laborers in the vineyard. He sends 
seventy more. Ko organization of any separate churches yet. 

The truth is, had he done so, it would have convinced all 
he was not the Messiah of prophecy. Having spent his three 
years and six months reforming and spiritualizing the church, 
hunting up the lost sheep of the house of Israel, he is put to 
death. These now are the facts — the precedents the apostles 
had. ]N"o new church is organized. IS^o law changing its 
memb.ership is promulgated. Mathew x. he gave a commission 
to preach among the Jews, and he told them just what to do. 
In Matthev7 xxviii. 18, 19, he commissions them to the Gen- 
tiles, putting by his death Jews and Gentiles thenceforth on a 
common level of right and privilege. The apostles were to 
observe and do all that He had commanded them. But no 
command to destroy or organise the church and build up a new 
one, leaving out also the infants, is found. Hence it devolves 
on Dr. Graves to find w^here the membership of infants was 
repealed. 

We gave chapter and verse for all we taught. In every 
point we gave plenty of plain Scripture from both Testaments. 
We go by this old book. But where has he given such ? He 
tells you what this old father, that old commentator, and the 
other old theologians said about John's baptism ; or of "express 
precepts." etc., but what does it all amount to ? 

Then Christ says of " infants," " of such IS the kingdom 
of heaven." It consists of them as much as of any other 
class of beings. Hence in Acts xvi, 15, 16, 33, Lydia and her 
house — the Jailor and all his house, were baptized. I^or 
does it say the jailor's house believed or rejoiced. The w^ord 
^' panoiki'' is an adverb, rendered "with all his house." "It 
merely qualifies how he rejoiced. It is urged that in the 
house of Stephanas ths^t they addicted themselves to the min- 
istry of the saints." But this does not necessarily imply that 
each one did so by any means. Moreover it was some years 
afterwards that this language was used, and surely those who 
were infants one year could grow^ to an age to assist in w^aiting 
on the ministers or visiting brethren. 

But we are perfectly willing to let this whole question rest 
on our hour's speech. The Doctor has not shaken it, nor can 
he. We call attention to I. Cor. x. 1, 2, where "all our fath- 
ers were baptized unto Moses." ISTow of those 3,000,000, 
thousands were infants, they w^ere baptized. Thus the first 
baptism ever recorded is a religious one, had thousands of in- 
fants as its subjects. 



1 1 00 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' THIRD CLOSING SPEECH. 



Mr. Presidext. — The last argument in proof that Infant 
Baptism is not commanded by Christ, is — 

The advocates oe infant baptism refute it by their 
contradictory statements of the authority upon which 
to ground it, and its design, or use. 

Dr. Beattie, in his Essay an Truth, utters this maxim of 
universal application. '' They who allow themselves to contra- 
dict matter of fact, will find it no easy matter to avoid contra- 
dicting themselves." Page 170. 

It was for this very reason that the witnesses suborned to 
convict Christ; "agreed not among themselves." 

There can be no greater proof that a statement or theory 
is false when the advocates of it, among themselves, deny and 
refute every reason, or ground, they themselves are able to 
invent or produce to sustain it. 

I assert that the advocates of infant baptism do this, and I 
propose to prove it. 1. In respect to the authority upon 
which to ground it. 

(a). The earliest Fathers, Origen and others, who advocated 
it, only claimed the authority of tradition. 

The learned Curcelloeus declares that it is not an apostolic 
tradition, but only an ancient custom. 

(b). Dr. Hammond, and his school, and that not small, 
derives it from Jewish proselyte bathing, which is only a Jewish 
tradition. 

But Dr. Lardner, at the head of a long list of learned names, 
tells us that proselyte baptism is a mere fiction, and affords no 
authority whatever for infant baptism. 

(c). Pope Innocent III., Peter Edwards, and others, not a 
few, assert that baptism came in the room of circumcision. 

But, Drs. Moses Stuart, Hammond, and others, too numer- 
ous to mention, say, that the covenant with Abraham, and 
circumcision, afford no ground even to infer infant baptism. 

(dj. K. Watson, and his school. Eld. Ditzler added, maintain 
that the analogy between the Jewish Church and the Christian, 
affords an inferential authority for the baptism of infants. 

But, Drs. Halley, Wardlaw, Williams, Manly, Alexander 
and Stuart, and a host of others, affirm that this ground is 
fallaciou.-<. 



Believer's Baptism. iioi 

[e] G. Gibbs and others claim authority from the Lord's 
commission to baptize all nations. But many others are free 
to admit and prove that neither the letter nor the spirit of that 
commission, the only law for baptizing any one, will admit of 
Infant Baptism ; but if infants are included in it they are all 
lost, for those that believe not shall be damned. 

[f] Dr. Stacy and his school ground it on a peculiarly un- 
grammatical construction of Matthew's commission — z. e., dis- 
ciple the nations, all infants as well as adults^ by baptizing them, 
baptize first and then teach them, and so enroll them as schol- 
ars, etc. 

But the scholarship of the earth unite in pronouncing this 
a vicious treatment of the text, and declare with Calvin, Lim- 
borch, Grotius, Venema, Baxter, Doddridge, Matthew Henry, 
Dr. Adam Clarke, my friend's own standard commentator, that 
to disciple necessitated teaching on the part of the apostles 
and a reception of truths taught on the part of those discipled. 

Calvin. — " The evangelists frequently use the terms believers and cZis- 
eiples as equivalent, and especially Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles." 
*' Christ orders those to be baptized who shall have given their names to 
the gospel, and shall have professed themselves disciples." 

LiMBORCH. — *'They could not make disciples but by teaching. By 
this instruction the disciples were brought over to the faith before they 
were baptized. Mark xvi, 15, 16." ''Hence also our Lord commanded 
that men should first be taught, and brought over to the faith, and after 
that be baptized, Matthew xxviii, 19; Mark xvi, 15, 16." — Ins,, I. v. c, 
68, § 2. 

Grotius. — " Since there are two ways of teaching, the one imperfect, 
by introduction to the first principles ; the other by more extensive in* 
struction : the former seems to be intended by mat'heteuein : for it means 
to initiate as it were into the doctrines and this is to precede baptism ; the 
latter is pointed out by didas^em, which is to follow baptism." — Anno. 
on Matt, xxviii, 20 

RiUAiiTius.-^" The words of our Lord are exceedingly clear, who com- 
mands to teach before they baptize." It is very clear that the commission 
makes no distinction between baptizing some and baptizing others. If it 
implies that teaching and discipling are in one instance to precede bap- 
tism, it implies that all are to be taught and made disciples before baptism. 
Erasmus, Beza, Castalio, and others translate the words, ^'- Teach all na- 
tions." 

Venema, on Matt, xxviii 19, 20, says: "This is an excellent passage, 
and explains the whole nature of baptism. Before persons were baptized, 
it was necessary for them to believe the preaching of the apostles, which 
faith they were to profess in baptism." — Diss Sac, I. ii, c. xiv, \ 6. 

Bp. Burnet. — " By the first teaching, or making of disciples, that must 
go before baptism, is to be meant the convincing of the world that Jesus 
is the Christ, the true Messias," &c. "And v/hen any were brought to 
acknowledge this, they were to baptize them." 

Dr. Barrow on Matt, xxviii, 19: " The action is baptizing, orimmers* 
ing in water; the object thereof those persons of every nation, whom His 
ministers can by their instruction and persuasion render disciples: that 
is, such as do sincerely believe the truth of His doctrine, and seriously re- 
solve to obey His commands." — WovUs^ vol. i, p. 518. 

R.Baxter. — "' Go disciple me all nations, baptizing them.' As for 
those that say, they are discipled by baptizing, and not before baptizing, 



1102 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

they speak not the sense of that text ; nor that which is true or rational 
if they mean it absolutely as so spoken ; else why should one be baptized 
more than another? . . . When Christ lay eth down in the apostohcal 
commission the nature and order of His apostles' work, it is first to make 
disciples, and then to baptize them into the name of the Father, Son, and 
Holy Ghost. And as it is a making disciples which is first expressed in 
Matthew, so Mark expoundeth." 

Dr. Doddridge. — ''Proselyte aU the nations of the earth to the faith 
and obedience of my gospel, baptizing them . . . that by this solemn 
initiatory they may profess their subjection to each of these Divine per- 
sons." 

M. Henry. — " By our being baptized we solemnly profess, (1) our as- 
sent to the Scripture revelation concerning God, the Father, Son and 
Holy Ghost. We confess om' behef that there is a God, and there is but 
one God," &c. 

[g] Some claim tlie command of Christ. But others, and 
the majority of Pedobaptists, deny any precept or command 
for the practice in the Word of God. 

[h] Some few resolutely claim examples in the !N"ew Testa- 
ment. But by far the larger number frankly declare that the 
Bible does not contain either precept or example for Infant 

Baptism. 

[i] Some think they may reasonably infer the authority 
from the fact that four households were baptized by Paul 
during his ministry. But scores of the ripest scholars admit 
that this would justify the baptism ot adult children of fifty 
years as well as children of a few days and ought not to be 
urged. 

[j] Some claim — Dr. Miller, of Princeton — with Calvin, 
that the infants of believing parents have a hereditary l^ight to 
the ordinance by birth, and that such are born into the church 
(as Elder Ditzler holds) and therefore have a right to it. 
Others stoutly deny it. 

[k] Some claim, with Eld. Ditzler, that infants are born 
holy or fit for Heaven, and therefore are proper subjects. 
But hosts of the more considerate agree with Paul that all in- 
fants are born depraved, the children of wrath. 

[1] Others, with Dr. Coleridge, claim if they have nothing 
more, they have at least the silence of the M'^.erfd Scriptures, 
and that is something. But their brethren are qnick to silence 
them with the statement that this would wurr;iiir tlie baptism 
of bells and mules as well. 

[m] The Latin Catholic Church admits there is neither 
precept nor example, nor Scripture authority, but claims first 
as for sprinkling the authority of the church, which Pro- 
testants are by no means willing to accept as proper grounds. 

And all Pedobaptists are perplexed with this difiiculty. — If 
children should be baptized, whose children? Presbyterians 
say of one or both believing parents. Methodists and others 



Believer's Baptism. • 1103 

say the children of all, indiscriminately. And still another, 
and as perplexing, whether they be the children of believers 
or unbelievers — of what age? Where is the limit, eight days, 
eight years, or eighty years. The 'New Testament fixes no 
limit, and none confine it to eight days, and circumcision was 
limited. 

II. Pedobaptists contradict and refute each other touching the reasons 
for the act. 

The more candid and thoughtful admit that Christ and the Apostles 
joined baptism to faith, and feel the force of that command, " What God 
hath joined together, let not man put asunder." The question arises 
among them, on whose faith is an infant baptized? 

[a] Lather claimed that they are to be baptized on their 
ovvn faith, which God superfuses into them by or in the act. 
Others, and most others, deny it. 

[b] The Episcopal Church baptizes on the faith of sponsors. 
Most all others deny this. 

[c] The Presbyterians baptize on the faith of the parents. 
Most others deny it. 

[d] Methodists baptize on whose faith? Elder Ditzler's? 

[e] Catholics on the faith of the church. 

Among the protestant divines of the sixteenth century, 
those who with Luther, held that infants must be baptized 
on their own faith were as much perplexed about the kind of 
faith it was, as they were by the authority to baptize them 
at all. 

(a) Luther held that it was an imparted faith ; (6) Leigh 
held that it was an imputed faith ; [c) Bingham that they had 
2i passive faith; id) Witsius holds a relative faith; [e) Chemu- 
tius holds that they had a faith in semine, i. e., a seminal faith. 
(/) Prideaux asserted that they had the faith of the Covenant 
though not of the Covenantees. 

Surely such contradictory evidence would be enough to non- 
suit any cause save that of Infant Baptism. 

III. But the Pedobaptists contradict and refute each other touching 
the use of Infant Baptism and the benefit it confers on the child. 

All the earliest Fathers who first advocated it — Origeo, Cyril 
— urged that it was necessary to salvation, since it washed 
away original sin, and in some way secured eternal life as John 
Wesley teaches. There is greater agreement in this than in 
anything else touching the rite. 

The Greek Church teaches this. The Roman Catholics sav 
"If any one shall say that baptism is not necessary to salvation 
let him be accursed. 

The Lutheran Church holds that it is generally necessary to 
salvation. The Episcopal Church. hold to the same sentiment. 
The Presbyterians likewise do the samjg. 



1104 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

The Alethodi&t Society teaches the views of Wesley as ex- 
pressed in his Treatise on Baptism and Sermon on the !N"ew 
Birth. 

The Congregationalists^ Henry Ward Beecher— says to benefit 
the parents^and when asked why, "For the same reason I 
would make an ox yoke — it's a good thing.'' I challenge Eld, 
Ditzler to state a ground of authority claimed for it by any advo- 
cate of it, or the reason of it, or the benefits conferred by it, that 
is not denied or refuted by other advocates of it. Same 
end, yet what one embraces another condemns,'" and thus 
thev mutuallv destrov each other's aro^uments. "For error is 
nowhere staple or certain, but fiuctuates like tlie Isle of DeloS 
beyond the skill of men or devils, to give it fixation." 

It is the most present desire of ray heart that these consid- 
erations — this utter disagreement and contradiction among the 
advocates of Infant Baptism as to its authority, as to the rea- 
sons for, and benefits of it, the limitations as to the parents, 
and age of the children, may afi*ect you as it did the celebrated 
Simon Menno in the days of Luther. I will read a paragraph 
written bv himself. 

Menno, in the sixteenth century, vindicating hunself from the charge 
of having become a Baptist, " through the efforts and means of seducing 
sects," sa^^s: "To speak of a person's being re-baptized, sounded very 
strangely in my ears. I examined the Scriptm'es with diligence, and med- 
itated on them earnestly ; but I could find in them no notice of infant 
baptism. As I marked this, I spoke of it to my 'pastor:' and after many 
conversations he ackno^^'ledged that infant baptism had no ground in the 
Scriptures. Yet 1 dared not trust so much to uiy undeistanding. I con- 
sulted some ancient authors, who taught me that children -must by bap- 
tism be washed from their original sin. This I compared with the Scrip- 
tui'es, and perceived that it set at naught the blood of Christ. Afterwards 
I went to LuTHEE, and w^ould gladl}' have known from him the ground 
[of infant baptism]; and he taught me that we must baptize children on 
their own faith, because they are hol3^ This also I saw was not accorcUng 
to God's Word. In the third place I went to Bucer, who taught me that 
we must baptize children, in order that we may be able the more dih- 
geutly to take care of them, and bring them up in the ways of the Lord. 
But this, too, I saw, was a groundless reiDresentation. In the fourth iDlace 
I had recourse to Bullinger, w^ho pointed me to the covenant of circum- 
cision; but I found, as before, that according to the Scriptures the practice 
could not stand." — Afenno, d'c, p. 2. 

At length, convinced that he had been '^ deceived with 
respect to Infaiit Baptism/' he received believers' immersion. 

I can but adopt the language of another, Sir Wm. Jones, 
I believe, who, in speaking of a commonly received principle 
of natural philosophy exclaims : " If it is not enough to discom- 
pose the muscles of a hermit, to see men thus notoriously con- 
tradicting one another, and all gravely pretending to authority 
and demonstration ! " 

Why is it that the force of this argument from the self-con- 



Believer's Baptism. iio 



D 



traclictioii luid refutation of the advocates of infant baptism is 
not more generally felt and acknowledged by Protestants them- 
selves, when they discuss this question, seeing they yield it its 
full force on other subjects ? Dr. Rush says: ''Errors may 
be opposed to errors, but truths upon alT subjects mutually 
support each other." Is not this axiomatic ? 

Dr. Allex says : " When men dispute against the truth, what 
one of them builds up is presently pulled down by the other." 
And writing against transubstantiation, he could say, ''We 
find every party exposing the falseness and impossibihty of 
every one's hypothesis but their own. Their greatest men 
confess the uncertainty of their own proofs, that there is any 
Scripture authority for transubstantiation." 

Have I not shown that this is equally so of infant baptism? 
Like transubstantiation and sprinkling, it has no divine warrant, 
and men cannot agree upon the ground to rest it on. Tlie 
language of Dr. Owen, when reasoning with the Jews, I be- 
lieve, applies, with all its tremendous force to this matter of 
infant baptism. He says: "Every undue presumption hath 
one lameness or other attending it; it is truth alone, which is 
square and steady; men put themselves into an uncertain and 
slippery station, where they know not what to fix upon." The 
advocates of Infant Baptism know not what to fix upon, nor 
wherewith to relieve themselves. 

(1). I have shown that it was not commanded by Christ. 
(2). I have urged that it was not authorized Dy the Scriptures. 
(3). That it was not practiced by the apostolic churches, nor 
by any one of the apostolic fathers, nor by those who lived 
cotemporaneousiy with the apostles. (4). That there is no 
trace of it before the close of the second and nnddle of the 
third century, and then opposed; no really authentic history of 
it before the fourth century. — [^See my Introduction to WaWs 
Mis, Inf. Bap. 

It did not appear until a portion of the professed churches 
had adopted the pernicious dogma of baptismal regeneration. 
In that portion it alone continued, and it is afactthat it never 
w^as practiced in any comraunioo, and is not to this day, except 
with the idea of baptismal efiicacy ; that it is in some way- 
necessary for salvation. In proof, I refer to the Rituals and 
standard writers of every Church that practices it 

It carnalizes the church. It corrupts its doctrine. The 
doctrines of federal holiness, hereditary grace, proxorial 
faith, and sponsorial obedience, obliterate the true and vital 
principles of Christianity from the w^orld. It is the 'part 
and pillar of popery." It has been for ages enforced by the 
civil sword, and the blood of millions of the best men and 
69 



iio6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

women this world has ever known, has been shed for their 
opposition to it as an unscriptural, dan^^erous and pernicious 
practice. 

Syllogisms. 

V. (1) The CoDgregationalists assert in their articles, "That the New Tes- 
tament contains either in the form of express statute or in the exam- 
ple and practice of the Apostles and Apostolic Churches all the articles of 
faith necessar^y to be believed, all the duties that Christians should practice, 
and all the principles of order and diseipline requisite for constituting and 
governing Christian Societies, etc. 

(2) I concede and assert first that Infant Baptism is nowhere commanded 
in the Xew Testament. No man can find a passage that commands it, 
and if it can stand only on that ground we may as well give it up first as 
last." The doctrine of Substitution for Circumcision is false, without one 
"jot or tittle" of Scripture for its support. If I was compelled to furnish 
authority from the Scripture before baptizing an infant I should never 
baptize another. — [Henry Ward Beecher, Congregationalist. 

(3) Therefore, there being no authority in God's Word, neither command 
nor example in the New Testament for Infant Baptism, it ought not to 
be practiced for a Christian duty. 

Carrodi's Syllogism. 

VI. (1) "We ought to baptize to-day only such as Christ and his dis- 
ciples bai^tized." 

(2) At the time of Christ and his disciples only adults were baptized. 

I do believe and kiiow that there is neither precept nor example in Scrip- 
ture for Infant Baptism. — [Bishop Barlow. 

The Scriptures know nothing of the baptism of Infants. — [Dr. Hanna, 
Presbyterian. 

" If it is pretended to be a law of God and part of a sacrament, we must 
have a Divine institution for it." — [Bishop Burnet. 

(3) Therefore among Christians at the present day, not children but 
adults who are capable of professing "Christianity ought to be baptized." 
— [Carrodi, quoted in Dr. Fyfe's Bap. Sin. p. 18. 

VII. (1 1 To practice for an ordinance, what Christ never appointed, and 
for which there is neither express precept nor example, is to work an 
abomination in the sight of God, bv adding to the commandments of 
Christ. 

"It is criminal to establish or countenance any ceremony of man's 
invention as a part of Christian worship." — [Dr. McLeod. 

(2) " Infant Baptism is not taught in the Scriptures and can onh' be 
leai'oed from tradition" (Dr. Lingard, R. C.,) and is therefore man's 
invention 

(3j Therefore it is criminal to practice or countenance it. 

VIII. (1) Any rite or ceremony that is totally opposed to the funda- 
mental principre of the New Testament is not of God, and the practice 
of it is sinful and destructive of Christianity. 

(2) "Infant Baptism is totally opposed to "the spirit of the Apostolic age 
and to the fundamental principles of the New Testament." — [Dr. L. 
Lange, Prof. University, Jena. 

(3 ) Therefore Infant Baptism is not of God, and the practice of it 
sinful and destructive of Christianity. 

IX. (11 A practice that cannot on any point of view be justified by the 
Holy S]:)irit is not of God, and ought not to be practiced. 



Believer's Baptism. 1107 

(2) But " Infant Baptism cannot on any iwint of view be justified by 
the Holy Spirit, and would the Protestant Church fulfill and attend to its 
final destiny the baptism of new born babes must be abolished." — [Dr. 
Lange. 

(3) Therefore, Infant Baptism is not of God, and ought not to be 
practiced. 

X. ( ] ) That baptism which cannot fulfill the design of either John's bap- 
tism nor Christian baptism as instituted by Christ, is not authorized 
by God's Word, and the practice of it sinful. 

(2) But Dr. Lardner says, " For whom was baptism appointed? For 
adults and not for children ; for adults of all times — not only for those times. 
There can be no question about any infant baptism ; if the Christian 
Church will remain true to the gospel neither the baptism of John nor 
Christian baptism can be fulfilled in respect to new born children." 

(8) Therefore Infant Baptism is not authorized by the Word of God, 
and its practice is sinful. 

XI. (1) If the infant children of Gentiles are to be baptized because 
Abraham circumcised his children, then it must be because they are either 
Abraham's natural seed or his spiritual seed. 

(2) But the infant children of Gentile parents are neither the natural 
nor the spiritual children of Abraham. 

(3) Therefore, they are not to be baptized. 

XII. (1) If the rite of Christian Baptism comes in the room of circum- 
cision then is the Covenant under which the Christian Church organized 
identical with that of circumcision and offers the same blessings only, and 
is to be given to the same persons only — i. e., male children — who are 
Jews, for circumcision was given to a Gentile as such. 

{2} But the advocates of Infant Baptism all deny this. 
(3) Therefore, baptism does not come in the room of circumcision 
according to their own faith and practice. 

* 

Xni. (1' A bax^tism that is not the profession of a personal faith in 
Christ cannot be called Christian Baptism. 

Having your hearts sprinkled, etc., . . . the profession of faith e^s to 
onoma. 

(2) But Infant Baptism is not a profession of personal faith. 

(3) Ergo. The baptism of an unconscious infant is not Christian Bap- 
tism. 

Replication. 

And now in concluding I have but a word or two to offer 
in replj to all Eld. Ditzler has said, and I do so for the rea- 
son that he has ignored this question altogether. His very 
first statement was altogether a mis-statement. He said that 
this is the same question we have previously discussed, and 
he has so treated it throughout. It is not the same question 
at all. It is an alto2:ether different one, and Eld. Ditzler very 
well knows it. Ihis was presented to his Committee and 
they flatly refused to discuss it. I personally challen_^e Eld. 
Ditzler to discuss it with me, for such a proposition has never 



iio8 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

before been discussed on this Continent, and it has not be^n 
discussed now, for Eld. Ditzler has not even alluded to it. 
Has he attempted to show a j)lain command of Christ for it. 
Mark you, Command, Command, COMMAND of Christ, of 
CHRIST, not an inference or presumjytion, or as his Bro. Dr. 
Bledsoe claims, and all that he claims, an analogy that justi- 
fies the practice — none of all this, but the question is as to a 
Command of Christ. If he should in his closing speech intimate 
again that infants are embraced in the terms, "all nations," or 
" every creature" — then he inevitably dooms the last infant 
on earth whether baptized or unbaptized to eternal damna- 
tion — for it reads then " every one of them that believeth not 
shall be damned. He has found no command — has not at- 
tempted to do so, and ignored the dut}/ of doing, and there- 
fore has violated his word to me that he would discuss it with 
me. I would here advise my ministerial brethren from hence- 
forth to offer and accept no other proposition than this, but 
compel Pedobaptists to affirm that Infant Baptism is com- 
manded hy Christ. 



Believer's Baptism. 1109 



DR. DITZLER'S THIRD REPLY. 



Gentlemen Moderators: — Dr. Graves says I had infants 
out the last time I spoke. JS'ot exactly by a good deal. 

He urges there is no conscience in an infant. Hence again 
he pleads 1 Peter iii. 21, baptism is '*the answer of a good con- 
science." Infants he says cannot have this. We reply as we 
did on Proposition II, eperotama^ answer, means, ^'promise," 
"stipulation," "a pledge laid down or given in advance." So 
Wahl, Schleusner, Suicer, in their lexicons. Hence it pre- 
eminently applies to the baptism of infants instead of (detract- 
ing from the right or propriety of it from that stand-point. 

I regret the Docter brings up the ad captandum that ought 
to be ignored by so able a debater, in talking about feeding 
babes, when discussing the Lord's Supper. It is unworthy, 
and shows the constant disposition of our opponent to fall 
back on the Tom Payne mode of discussion — deal in sneers. 
We do not give the Supper to people aafood, but as a, memorial 
act — do ''this in remembrance of me." J^one but adults ever 
partook of it from the beginning so far as records go. 

None but those capable of remembering him took it at its 
first or second most noted celebration, and the words, let a 
man examine himself, do this in remembrance of me, etc., 
clearly enough show that adults alone are to take it. It can't 
be given in advance, is not an eperotama. 

He tells us there is no inference to be made where positive 
laws are given. This is guessing again, and striking at ran- 
dom in the dark. Take the two positive commands on the 
Lord's Supper and baptism. " Do this," etc. Now we have 
to infer who are entitled to it, for only apostles took it. Only 
males took it. Only preachers took it where this injunction 
was commanded. Yet from its design, nature and the ancient 
way of keeping it since Moses, we infer all the details about 
it. As to baptism, the commission specifies nothing in detail. 
It names no class, speciiies no age. All is inference. 

He says John baptized under a like commission. As he did 
not give it, show it, nor prove it, we deny it, and will again 
notice John's baptism directly. 

He quotes John iv. 2, Christ made and baptized more dis- 
ciples than John, though Christ in person did not baptize. 



mo The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Do you quote that to prove that we can disciple before we 
baptize ? 

We grant that. We lose nothing there. Adults who have 
sinned are to be not only taught, but obey — heed the teach- 
ings that they may become converted and become fit for the 
symbolic use of baptism, as infants are under the "free gift." 
We have even shown that were his constructions correct, still 
infant baptism follows of necessity. He has not pretended to 
meet it. 

He introduces a new point — the law arrests no infant, he 
says. But it protects them, and provides for their rights. 

John iii, 6, we full}- explained, applies not to any condition 
of membership in the church to-day, but solely to proselyte 
baptism as a fact in the olden time. It applied to Israel, (v. 
10). Yet infant membership existed in the church of which 
that lano^uao;e occurred. Hence it cannot be construed in a 
way to nullity a right it fully harmonized with. 

He quotes Acts ii, 47, "added the saved." But infants are 
saved. They are not damned- The free gift came upon ail 
men unto justification of life. We, as responsible beings, have 
to repent and believe in order to obtain the benefit and be- 
come as little children. They are not subject or liable to 
God's wrath, unless thev s:yow to transofress and become 
guilty. Methodism has always been a unit there. 

We care not for his modal adjuncts — they are not in our 
way. Kot a line or word in either commission repeals the 
baptism of infants. He says if they are included, they are 
lost. They are just the reverse. If they are excluded by his, 
Mark's commission, they are damned. All denied faith there — 
all who lack faith there as a condition are damned. He that 
believeth not. Dr. Graves urges, cannot be baptized. Infants 
cannot believe, hence, cannot be baptized. But he that be- 
lieveth not here, is dammed. That which here defeats 
their baptism insures damnation. Hence it was never meant 
to exclude infants, but simply those capable of hearing the 
Gospel; such believers may receive baptism 

He says a proselyte baptized did not have to have his 
grandchildren baptized. That is simply the dark-age featu^^e 
of it long years — centuries after Christ. 

Every Jewish infant was baptized. 

On 1 Cor. x, 1, 2, the Doctor urges that dogs, belis, horses, 
etc., were all baptized. 

Far from it. It tells us who were baptized. "All our fathers 
— a.11 were baptized unto Moses" — as their lawgiver, protector 
and leader, their leo:isiator under Grod, And to none was this 



Believer's Baptism. iiii 

half so true as to the class of them who were then infants, for all 
the adults perished more or less speedily, save two or three. 
There is that in religious, symbolic baptism that bells, horses, 
etc., cannot undergo. Did not they take all infants into the 
same relation to Moses as were the adults? You say they 
were obligated to Moses as a leader, etc., etc. Well, did they 
not bring their infant offspring into the same obligation and 
under the same protection ? Hence ''all our fathers," not a part 
of them simply, were baptized. Eis — to, unto, into now indi- 
cates position — to the city, not necessarily into, at last. All 
right. 

He makes a last plea for immerse. He asserted haiMdzo 
was immerse. We proved it wa3 not, but simply in late 
Greek only rarely applied to immersions. 

We have now reviewed all the points he has sought to make. 
He has done his best, and failed. We now^ review brieHy 
some of the many points we made. We begin by showing, 

I. There was a Church. 

Heb, ii, 12; Acts vii, 38; Heb. xii, 22; Eph. iii, 14, 15, 
called ''Zion," "house of Jehovah," "the Lord's flock," "my 
people," " the Zion of God," "God's witnesses," " Mount Zion," 
"brethren," "saints,'' "true circumcision," "the church." 

XL It was Spiritual, based on God's covenant of Redemption 
toman. Heb. ii, 10-14, quoted from Psalms xxii. All this 
we elaborated and analyzed. 

IIL Infants were meinbers of that church, their recognition 
provided for and established, while they recived its proper 
ordinances. 

Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God ; your captains of 
your tribes, your elders, and your officers, with, all the men of ferael. Your 
little ones, your wives, and thy stranger that is in thy camp, from the 
hewer of thy wood unto the drawer of thy water : That thou shouldest 
enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into his oath, which the 
Lord thy God maketh with thee this day. — Deut. xxix, 10-12. 

Blow the trumpet in Zion, sanctify a fast, call a solemn assembly. 
Gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather 
the children, and those that suck the breasts : let the bridegroom go forth 
of his chamber, and the bride out of her closet. Let the priests, the min- 
isters of the Lord, weep between the porch and the altar, and let them 
say. Spare thy people, O Lord, and give not thine heritage to reproach, 
that the heathen should rule over them : wherefore should they say among 
the x)eople. Where is their God? — Joel ii, 15-17. 

And of Kohath was the family of the Amamites, and the fami.'y of the 
Izeharites, and the family of the Hebronites, and the family of the Uzzie- 
lites ; these are the families of the Kohathites. In the number of all the 
males, from a month old and upward, were eight thousand and six hun- 
dred, keeping the charge of the sanctuary.—- iVwm m, 27, 28. 

In Joel, 11, 15-17 '^ congreoration" in the Hebrew, and 



1 1 12 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

Greek is church — ekklesian. Infants that " suck the breasts '^ are 
members of it, and receive the sprinkhng of the water by the 
priest. 

We then showed from Hebrews ix. 13, 19, 21, how they 
" sanctified the church," by sprinkling water on them. We 
then showed that in the 10th verse of the same chapter, Paul 
calls these sprinklings of four diverse kinds of elements — 
blood of goats, of calves, of bulls, and water — upon four 
diverse objects, viz., men, the book, the tabernacle and vessels 
of the ministry; diverse baptisms, baptisms diverse in kind, so 
the word diaphorois always means. W e saw from lumbers 
viii. 7 ; xix. 13 ; 2. Chron. xxx. 16-18, how they sanctified to 
the purification of people — -all by sprinkling. 

(1), Hence here we had established our points. A church, 
(2), spiritual (3), infants in it, (4), baptized. Now let him 
give chapter and verse where, 1, That church so loved of God 
was destroyed. 2. Where a new one was organized. 3. On 
such radically diiferent principles as that the infants were 
legislated out of it. 

In the earliest records, such terms were used, including the 

ages given, in connection with the ordinances administered, 

as shows it a general and settled principle of God's kingdom, 

and settles the force of house, household, in the New Testament, 

Gen. xviii. 19 : 

"For I know biin, that he will commaud his children and his house- 
hold after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and 
judgment ; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath 
spoken of him." — Gen. xviii, 19. 

"And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day 
whom ye will serve ; whether the gods which your fathers served that 
wei'e on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose 
laud ye dweU : but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord." — 
Josh, xxiv, 15. 

Numbers iii. 28 — infants a month old and upwards here are 
put in a state of discipleship in the Church of God. 

Y. Prophecies of perpetuity all assure its continiience for all 
time as God's covenant for salvation — "a covenant of the 
people." 

Isaiah x. 20-22, 27 ; xi. 1-5, 10, 12 compared with Rom. xi. 

1-5, 7-11, 16-27, and xlix. entire; Jiv., etc., etc. 

"And it shall come to pass in that daj", that the remnant of Israel, and 
such as are escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no more again stay upon 
him that smote them ; but shall stay upon the Lord, the Holy One of Is- 
rael, in truth. The remnant shall return, even the remnant of Jacob, 
unto the mightj^ God. For though thy people Israel be as the sand of the 
sea, yet a remnant of them shall return : the consumption decreed shall 
overflow with righteousness. And it shall come to pass in that day, that 
his burden shall be taken away from off thy shoulder, and his yoke from 
off thy neck and the yoke shall be destroyed because of the anointing."— 
Is, X, 20-22, 27, 



Believer's EaptiSxAI. 1113 

Here we learn, 1st. That the unbelieving "stumbled," 
'" fell," were " cast away," " broken off," {thrice), had been " the 
natural branches," who " fell," (22). If they repent and receive 
Christ at any time — the Jews — then it will be " receiving 
them" as from the dead, Gentiles brought into the church, are 
•' grafted in among them, and with them partake of the root 
and fatness of the olive-tree" — complete unity; they as "the 
root," who were not broken off, " bear" the Gentiles, verse 18, 
19, and converted Jews shall be "grafted in again" — "grafted 
into their own olive-tree," into which Gentiles were grafted 
contrary to nature, 24. 

From which did Jews by unbelief fall ? From what were 
thej^ cut off? 

We showed that John, Christ and his apostles never organ- 
ized a new church, but reformed the church, enlarged it, 
brought in the Gentiles. All prophecy, all Christ's teaching, 
all his acts, all apostolic action and teachings harmonize in all 
this. Hence it stands unshaken forever. 

We showed that from Moses till the commission, wdienever 
proselytes w^ere brought in, all their infants were (1) discipled, 
(2) all baptized. We proved this by the Bible. This, then, 
was the universal practice. Hence, when these apostolic 
Jews were sent to disciple, they acted as they had always been 
taught, as they had been accustomed. Hence the commission 
does not name any class of pe(*5ple as subjects of disci pleship. 

We met all his objections about bad people in the ancient 
church by showing that the same facts equally applied to tho 
apostolic church and the Baptist church. Hence it fell away. 
We showed that Christ taught that " of such (infants) is the 
kingdom of heaven." That they were to be " received in his 
name.' That the kingdom was to be taken from the Jew^s 
ajid " leased out," given to the Gentiles. Infants were in 
that kingdom, the unbelieving Jews were " rejected," " cast 
out," and the Gentiles brought in. Hence in coming into the 
kingdom, the law of commandments had been taken out of 
the way, which represented Sinai with its threats, and they 
came, therefore, not to the Mount Sinai, but to Mount Zion, 
yea, the general assembly and church of the first-born. Heb. 
xii. 22-24. It is the one church. The Gentiles who came 
into this kingdom came into the church of the first-born who 
are written in heaven. There is but the one church. Hence 
we hive 1. The church. 2. It is spiritual. 3. Infants were 
in ir. 4. They were baptized, and always recognized as mem- 
bers. Now he must get them out. His sole argument is 
remote, feeble, unauthorized inference. He gets rid of the 



1 114 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

church of God, and finds not a Scripture for it. He organizes 
a new one, and not a line of the Bible shown to establish it. 
He leaves the infants out, without a word of authorit}^ We 
demand chapter and verse. 

They then begin to file objections. 

n. John never baptized any children, it is urged, only 
believers in Christ. 

1. John was not baptizing believers hi Christ, as Luke iii. 
15, 16, and Matt. ix. 14 show. 

2. He baptized that Christ might be manifest to Israel — 
hence if infants were not baptized by Him it was tor this rea- 
son — a very adequate one. 

3. He baptized, obligating to repentance — they need no re- 
pentance, and that is reason enough why he should not bap- 
tize them, if he did not. 

4. It is nowhere recorded that he bajytized women — no woman 
mentioned in all his baptisms. So by that logic they ought 
not now to be baptized. 

As John is claimed as the BajJtist founder, they should re- 
store primitive order, and reject woman, and baptize for the 
same purposes with which John baptized. 

3. The apostles never baptized — the twelve — any infants. 
I know not, for, 

1. There is 7io record where they ever baptized anybody in all the 
Bible record. 

2. You are bound to admit that they still (Acts xv. 1, 2, 3 ; 
xxi.) circumcised infants, yet no record of such individual cases 
of infant circumcision can be found. 

3. There is no record of a woman at the Lord's table, when 
it was instituted. 

4. None during the Apostolic age. 

5. There is no record of a child being baptized in the E"ew 
Testament. Yet you baptize children, at eight, nine and ten 
vears of asre. Where is your consistencv? 

4th. But Paul did baptize three cases — no infant there. Let 
us see the baptisms he performed or was present with. 

1. Lydia. — They baptized "her household.'' Oh, but there 
were no infants there. Well, then, that is the only proof you 
have that they did not baptize them. It is an excellent reas.on 
why they did not, if you are correct. 

2. The Jailer. — Acts xvi, 30-33 : "He and all his were bap- 
tized." Syriac: "He and all his childi^en were baptized." 

(1) Oh, but they all "believed and rejoiced," who were 
baptized. JN'ot so. Panoiki is an adverb simply, and qualifies 
rejoice. Rejoice and believe are singular in Greek, only the 
jailer being the nominative to the verb. 



Believer's Bapsism. 1115 

(2) Biit there were no children there ! Then that was a 

good rei^son for not baptizing them. 

3. Stephanas, his household. — 1 Cor, i, 16 : 

" Aiid I baptized also the household of Stephanas : besides, I know not 
whether I baptized any- other. 

But, 1 Cor. xvi, 15 : 

" I beseech you, brethren, fye know the house of Stephanas, that it is 
the first fruits of Achaia, and that they have addicted themselves to the 
ministry of the saints.)" 

2. They who werp baptized ministered unto Paul, hence, no 
infants or little children ! Indeed. It simply sa3's " they have 
addicted themselves to the mi nistrv of the saints" — not that 
all did so at their baptism. Could they not grow up in years? 
Don't little children four and live years old assist in minister- 
ing, to help, etc., at times ? Since Paul was there the young- 
est babe could have grown up to minister or assist in waiting 
on one in Rome important points. 

You say there is no record where apostles, etc., baptized 
infants! 

Is there any where Ananias, the devout Jew who baptized 
Saul (Paul) was baptized ? Where the twelve were? Where 
the seventy were? Where the one hundred siid tw^enty 
w^ere ? Where the vast multitude of "devout Jews" whom 
the people heard speak the w^onderful words of God were 
baptized? IS'otice well. 

Thei^e is no record or hint of the baptism of any Jeros in the New 
Testament history of Christy save those who had rejected "Him — 
dwelt in imhelief^ and so were of those '^ cut 0^," ivho had ^'fallen 
away,'' etc. 

Is it a marvel then that infants baptism should not be 
specially named in the New Testament, in the light of these 
facts ? 

As to history, we need not repeat the facts. They are in 
record. In the Council of Carthage, A. D. 251, sixty-six 
bishops decide that it is unnecessary to delay baptism till in- 
fants are eight days old. Origen, born eigty-four years 
after John's death, shows infant baptism to have been univer- 
sal in his day. He names it incidently often. It was not agi- 
tated in his day. Tertullian shows it to have been universal in 
his day. The efforts to get rid of the force of this testimon}^ are 
astonishingo We referred to them sufficiently in the first speech 
to-day. Irenaeus, born before John died, bosom friend of one 
of John's disciples, uses the word regenerate for baptism, which 
he and Justin Martyr do constantly, and names "infants" 
most prominentlv as those " resrenerated unto God." All the 
space between Tertullian and the apostles is covered over — 



iii6 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the space filled by admirable writers, Irenseus, Justin Martyr, 
Ignatius, etc., so that infant baptism could not have crept in 
without exposure. 

Such a change as its introduction pre-supposes, involved 
1 An entire change in the doctrine of the church. 2. A com- 
plete change in practice. 3. Every change, however trivial, 
feast da3^s, and many such things, besides the change in doc- 
trine that sent the names of Corinthus, Bassilides, Marcion, 
Montanus, all between the years 113 and 160, A. D. down to 
us as heads of disturbing sects, attest the force of this. But 
where did this supposed change come in at, and how comes 
the whole church to be as silent in such a stupendous change 
as the grave itself? It did not so come in. Infant baptism 
was apostolic. — ITime out. 



THE 

GREAT CARROLLTON DEBATE. 

SIXTH PROPOSITION. 

IT IS POSSIBLE FOE A TRULY REGENERATE AND ADOPTED CHILD 01 
GOD TO APOSTATIZE SO AS TO BE FINALLY LOST. 

DR. DITZLER Affirms. 
DR. GRAVES Denies. 



[Dr. Ditzler's Opening Speech.] 

I was opposed to discussing this proposition, because I have 
for years, yea, during my ministry, constantly advocated union 
of God's people, co-operation, and therefore in all those mat- 
ters which one may believe or not believe, yet not endanger 
thereby the soul ; all those metaphysical speculations, and all 
matters that are of such nature as that we may believe the one 
way or the other, yet equally respect God's word and authority 
— to which a Beza, Zwingle, Calvin or Bunyan may assent, from 
which a Keplar, Episcopius, Arminius, Wesley, Clarke, Thol- 
uck, and Stier dissent — yet all be equally pious and useful — 
all such , I say, should be left to the liberty of conscience, 
the right of private judgment. They never should divide the 
church. Hence I am anxious to have all the great spiritual 
bodies come closer and closer together. 

[Nevertheless, I firmly believe this proposition, and with 
my church maintain it. The time allotted, one day, forbids 
a metaphysical discussion of it, hence I shall pursue the plain 
Scripture argument. It needs little criticism. The English 
version in the main will do us. 

I may notice the following facts ere I proceed to argue the 
proposition : 

1. It is impossible in the very nature of the case for him to 



iii8 i:iE Great Carrollton Debate. 

sustain the negative here — disprove the proposition, even 
couid he show that no one ever had fallen. But he cannot do 
that either in the very nature of things. 

2. We are safe any way — occupy an enviable position : for 
(1) if you could establish your negative, we are safe as you 
are. We cannot fall if you cannot. We stand if you do. (2) 
But if we prove to be right, you in error, you are then in a 
fearfully dangerous position, in that it inay lull to repose, ease, 
carelessness, presumption and ruin. We have the safe side 
which surely must be the right side. 

3. We ask in all good faith, did ever a valuable, sober, ear- 
nest constitution of laws, code, or body of men who were 
earnest, good and true, warn of danger, threaten, admonish 
c'onstantly, and from fearful p)ast examples, draw threats and 
enforce warning, where , no danger existed? I^ever, never, 
NEVER ! Is the Bible an exception ? But we proceed to sus- 
tain our proposition 

I. By the History of Facts and the Conclusions based 

ON THEM. 

1. The holy angels who had God's favor fell. 

"For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but east them down to 
hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto 
judgment." — 2 Peter, ii, 4. 

"And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own 
habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto 
the judgment of the great day." — Jude verse 6. 

Peter introduces this strong language to enforce and give 
point to his words, v. 1, warning against "damnable heresies," 
even denying the Lord that bought them, who thus "bring 
upon themselves swift destruction." He further enforces it 
by the examples of other actual occurrences of ruin. Jude 
shows that the angels lost their place, and so bases his argu- 
ment on the fact as a warning to us. 

2. Adam and Eve fell, and Paul bases an argument on that 
fact also as a warning to us. 2 Cor. xi. 2, 3. 

Kotice here,the apostle "fears lest by any means, as the ser- 
pent beguiled Eve," so those whom he had " espoused to 
Christ," to whom he was as a "husband" as a "chaste vir- 
gin," might become seduced by the deceit of the devil and 
" corrupted from the simplicity that was in Christ." We omit 
the fall of Solomon, of Saul and others, found in I. Sam. x. 5, 
6, 9; xxvi. 14 vs., quite equally pointed. 

3. With these facts of possibiliti/, the following texts show 
how possible and dangerous it is: 

" The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity 
of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son : the 
righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of 
the wicked shall be upon him. * * in his righteousness that he hath done 



Final Perseverance. 1119 

he shall live. Ezk. iv. But when the righteous turneth away from his righte- 
ousness, and committeth iniqity, aad doeth according to all the abomina- 
tions that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness 
that he hath done shall not be mentioned ; in his trespass that he hath 
trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, in them shall he die. Yet ye 
any, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O house of Israel ; is 
not my way equal? are not your ways unequal? When a righteous man 
turneth away from his righteousness, and committeth iniquity, and dieth 
in them; for his iniquity that he hath done shall he die." — Exek. xviii. 
20, 24-26. 

" Therefore, thou son of man, say unto the children of thy people. The 
righteousness of the righteous shall not deliver him in the day of his trans- 
gression : as for the wickedness of the wicked, he shall not fall thereby 
in the day that he turneth from his wickedness ; neither shall the righte- 
ous be able to live for his righteousness in the day that he sinneth. When 
I shall say to the righteous, that he shall surely live ; if he trust to his 
own righteousness, and commit iniquity, all his righteousness shall not be 
remembered ; but for his iniquity that he hath committed, he shall die for 
it."— Ezk. xxxiiL12, 13. 

These declarations are so plain, direct, simple and earnest, 
they need no comment. It will not do to say it means '* self- 
righteousness ;" for the righteousness is commended, and held 
up as assuring life, and departure, death— spiritual, eternal 
death. On the contrary, self righteousness, mere personal integ- 
rity is held up as ruinous, Ezk. xxxiii. 13 — " if he trust to his 
own righteousness, and commit iniquity,*' etc. Everywhere 
the Bible condemns mere selt-righteousness. 

2. " This charge I commit unto thee, son Timothy, according to the pro- 
phecies which went before on thee, that thou by them mightest war a 
good warfare ; Holding faith and a good conscience ; which some having 
put away, concerning faith have made shipwreck : Of whom is Hymene- 
ous and Alexander ; whom I have delivered unto Satan, that they might 
learn not to blaspheme." — I Tim. i. 18-20. 

Here notice the "faith " made " shipwreck " of, is that by 
" holding " which '' he might war a good warfare: holding 
faith and a good conscience." But he declares there were 
parties who -'having put away" this "faith and a good con- 
science" — it was not taken from them — notice that — they 
"put it off," threw it away — it was not a future possibility, 
but an accomplished fact — they had done this — "certain ones," 
and the result was, they made "shipwreck of taith." What a 
strong word. He says positively certain ones did this, and 
then names two examples — "of whom is Hymeneusand Alex- 
ander.' These had so apostatized that they were " delivered 
over to Satan." 

"But shun profane and vain babblings ; for they will increase unto more 
ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a canker : of whom is Hy- 
meneus and Philetus ; Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that 
the resurrection is past already ; and overthrow the faith of some." — II 
Timothy, ii. 16-18. 

Here parties who were of the faith and truth, err from it 

denying fundamental doctrines, and "overthrew the faith of 



II20 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

some." Now if a man's faith be overthrown, when we "live," 
"stand" and "walk by faith," how can we "live," "stand" or 
"walk" without it ? 

4. "And this will we do, if God permit. For it is impossible for those 
who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and 
were made partaliers of the Holy Ghost, and have tasted the good word 
of God, and the powers of the world to come, if they shall faU away, 
[and have fallen away] to renew them again unto repentance ; seeing 
they crucify, to themselves the-Son of God afresh, and put him to an 
open shame. But that which beareth thorns and briers is rejected, and is 
nigh unto cursing ; whose end is is to be burned." — Heb. vi. 3-6, 8. 

Let US carefully examine this — one of the places so mani- 
festly against our opponents, that Beza was forced to change 
the text in Latin, and make a rendering so false that he can- 
not be defended, and Jame's translators being rigid Calvinists, 
followed him. "For it is impossible" — there is my word — 
impossible on the one side supporting the possibility as the 
other — " for those who were once enlightened" — it was an ac- 
tual occurrence — it took place — thej- "were enlightened," and 
"have tasted of the heavenly gift — were made partakers of 
the Holy Spirit" — how strong this — " Lave tasted the good 
word of God and the powers of the world to come, rich, deep 
draughts of grace — tasted and seen that the Lord was good — 
led into rich pastures, beside the still waters — after all this, 
the same tense aorist is continued — kai parapesontas — and have 
fallen away — so it reads, and he dare not question it; and 
have fallen away [it is impossible] to renew them again to re- 
pentance." Here if saving them were now possible, repent- 
ance is named as a commencement, confirming the genuine- 
ness of their former conversion, and such an act of contrition 
would be a repetition, "repentance again." Tv^ell, why is it 
"impossible" in that case to be "renewed?" "Seeing they 
crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to 
open shame." Then as brias and thorns, so these are to be 
burned — lost. To a like class he refers- — 

(5.) " For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge 
of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrafice for sins, but a certain 
fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour 
the adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under 
two or three witnesses: 'Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, 
shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, 
and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, 
an unholv thing, and hath done desnite unto the Spirit of graced" 
Heb X. 26-29. 

Paul enforces this warning with actual occurrences also of 

a fearful character. Those under Moses named "died^^dth- 

out mercy." Much more so now those who trample under 

their foot the Son of God — vea, and such person " hath counted 

the blood of the covenant wherewith he was sanctmed — au 



Final Perseverance. 1121 

actual past fact — an unliolj thing, and hath done despite unto 
the Spirit of grace." Here again my proof is sustained. 

(6). "Brethren, if any of you do err from the truth, and one convert 
him ; let him kno^t', that he which converteth the sinner from the error 
of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of 
Gins." James v. 19, 20. 

The same comment would serve many of these Scriptures. 
Here he miy — "it is possible" — to so err from the truth as to 
need couversionj and such a conversion " saves a soul from 
death." It was clearly possible then to be lost. 

(7). Judas actually fell and was lost. He was (1) an Apostle 
(2) and preacher of righteousness^ and so (3) with the rest 
wrought miracles iii the faith of Christ, as Matt. x. 5-8, 20-22, 
shows, and (4) their names were all '^ written in heaven." 

" These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them^ saying, Go not 
into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter 
ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as 
ye go, preach, sayiiig, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. Heal the sick, 
cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils : freely ye have received, 
freely give." — Matt, x, 5-8. 

"For it shall be given you in that same hour what ye shall speak. For 
it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father which speaketh in 
you. And the brother shall deliver up the brother to death, and the 
father the child : and the children shall rise up against their parents, and 
cause them to be put to death. And ye shall be hated of all men for my 
name's sake: but he that endureth to the end shall be saved." — Matt. 
X, 19, 20, 21, 22. 

If Judas later showed evil signs so did Peter — sometimes 
presumptuous— -then over confident, then " follows afar off." 
Yea, denies his Lord— swears lies, commits perjury- — yet re- 
covers. Judas did not. Dr. J. R. Graves says in one of his 
works : Peter " was in a state of faith, and consequently, of 
justification and regeneration, while fallen. Peter was an 
Arminian. He fancied he was strong enough to stand alone 
— to keep himself." Is that Arminianism ? I^ever by any 
mortal was it so held — no Arminian so holds. But we are 
*' kept by the power of God through faith"— that is Arminian- 
ism. All these twelve had it said of them — " It is not ye that 
speak, but the Holy Spirit that speaketh in you." Matt. x. 20. 
Judas took the Lord's Supper with the rest, Luke xxiv. 17- 
20 ; Mark xiv. 12-23, This we saw under Third Proposition. 
He is expressly named as dipping with Christ, while Christ 
uses the words all — "they all did drink of it" — the cup, 
Mark xiv. 23. It was "after the sop Satan entered into him." 
John xiii. 27. Hence by transgression— by actual sin, " he 
fell." So Peter declares, Acts i. 

" For he was numbered with us, and had obtained part of this minis- 
try."— Acts i, 17. 

"For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be desolate, 
and let no man dwell therein : and His bishoprick let another take."— 
Acts i, 20. 

70 



TI22 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

" That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which 
Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. " — Acts 
i, 25. 

1. David fell most sadly, but recovered : 

2. Solomon, 1 Chron. xxviii, 9 : 

"And thou Solomon, my son, know thou the God of thy father, and 
serve, him with a perfect heart and with a willing mind ; for the Lord 
searcheth all hearts, and understandeth all the imaginations of the 
thoughts ; if thou seek him, he will be found of thee ; but if thou forsake 
him, he wiJl cast thee off forever." 

2Cor. XV, 2: 

"And he went out to meet Asa, and said unto him, Hear ye me, Asa, 
and all Judah and Benjamin ; the lord is with you, while ye be with him ; 
and if ye seek him he will be found of you ; but if ye forsake him he will 
forsake you." 

In the face of the dreadful fall of David, Solomon and 
others, the fearful fall of Saul, whom the Spii'it left, what can 
we believe but that man may so fall as to be lost, attended by 
such words as these, "if you forsake him, he will forsake 
you?" Suppose David had died after he had murdered 
Uriah, and for such a purpose, after carrying it out also. Will 
you say he could not die? That is fatalism. It assumes that 
a man once converted could live forever on earth, just sin on 
and God won't let him die. He could by sinning compel God 
to preserve his life. It destroys all free agency and respon- 
sibility. It assumes that after cenversion men are perfectly 
passive in God's hand — have no free will, no choice, no ac» 
tion — are machines. 

" But he that lacketh these things is blind, and cannot see afar off, and 
hath forgotten that he was purged of his old sins. Wherefore the rather, 
brethren, give diligence to make your calling and election sure ; for if ye 
do these things ye shall never fall." — -2 Peter i, 9, 10. 

This shows the possibility of falling certainly, and the oppo- 
site is the only promise of entering into rest. But Peter, having 
had such a rub himself does not stop, but returns with 
strength, emphasis, to this subject. 

"For when they speak great swelling w^ords of vanity, they allure 
through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those who were 
clean escaped from them who live in error. While they promise them 
liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption ; for of whom a 
man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage. For if after they 
have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the 
Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and over- 
come, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning. For it had 
been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than 
after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered 
unto them. But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, 
The dog is turned to his own vomit again ; and. The sow that was washed 
to her wallowing in the mire." — 2 Peter ii, 18-25. 

How can words be clearer — language more emphatic ? He 
leaves no room for hesitation as to its meaniiig. He prefaces 



Final Perseverance. 1123 

it (17) with these words: "For of whom a man is overcome, 
of the same is he brought into bondage " — slavery. He is 
*' conquered," observe, brought into slavery to the conquerer. 
1. The parties had " escaped the pollution of the world." 
How ? " Through the knowledge of the Lord Jesus Christ." 
They are soundly converted, are regenerated, escaped the pol- 
lution that is in the world. 2. They fall back into the pollution 
again — " are again entangled therein, and overcome." It is 
an accomplished fact, a past act, a reality. 3. Their condition 
now, (" latter end is worse than the former.") Well, in the 
former they were children of wrath, "liable to eternal death." 
But they are worse off now than then, because so mu'ch more 
culpable. 4. " The way of righteousness " they knew (verse 
21) "have known," was the way of salvation — God's "holy 
commandment "—they were washed." 5. The case actually 
occurred, " It -is (has) happened unto them" — 22, 6. He 
illustrates it by a "washed sow returning to her wallow again." 
Now we assert that to say all of this means nothing — that 
such declarations, such bold and urgent language implies not 
even the possibility of being lost, is to subvert all Bible au- 
thority. It is as easy to explain away the awful threats about 
hell, the divinity and rede;nption of Christ, the promise of 
Heaven, as to explain away tjiese facts and declarations. It 
sets a fearful precedent to seml-infidols and skeptics and dare 
not be followed. 

Final Perseverance. 

4. The threatenin^s, warnings, encouragements etc., based on the pos- 
sibiUty and actual danger of apostacy are strong proofs. 

(1)1 Cor. vi. 1 — We then, as workers together with him, beseech you 
also that ye receive not the grace of God in vain. 

(2) 1 Cor, viii. 11— And througli thy knowledge shall the weak brother 
perish, for whom Christ died ? 

Rom. xiv. 15, same, "destroy not him ["thy brother, v. 12, 
with thy meat for whom Christ died." 

If Paul stood on the* Baptist platform this "brother" was a 
baptized, regenerated man, yet he wns liable to be "destroyed," 
lost. 

(3) 1 Cor. ix. 27 — But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjec- 
tion ; lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself 
should be a castaway, 

1 Cor. 10-12 — Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured, 
and were destroyed of the destroyer. Now all these things happened unto 
them for ensamples ; and they are written for our admonition, upon whom 
the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he 
standeth take heed lest he fall. 

(4) Heb. iv. 1, 2, 11 — Let us therefore fear, lest, a promise being left us 
of entering into his rest, any of you should seem to come short of it. For 
unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them ; but the word 



1 1 24 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that 
heard it. Let us labor therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall 
after the same example of unbelief. 

All these warnings etc., are based on and backed up, by 
actual occurrences, as we see. Do they mean nothing? Surely 
not. 

(5) Heb. iii. 12, 13-16 — Take heed brethren, lest there be in any of you 
an evil heart of unbelief, in departing from the living God. But exhort 
one another daily, while it is called To-day ; lest any of you be hardened 
through the deceitfulness of sin. For w^e are made partakers of Christ, if 
we hold the beginning of our confidence steadfast unto the end. While it 
is said. To-day if ye will hear his voice, harden not your hearts, as in the 
provocation. For some, when they had heard, did provoke ; howbeitnot 
all that came out of Egypt by Moses. 

Everywhere the promise of life is conditional on our holding 

out to the end. Does all this mean nothing? Then are all 

Bible warnings and promises a cheat — a sad delusion. 

Rev. xxii, 19. — And if any man shall take away from the words of the 
book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, 
and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this 
book. 

Rev. iii, 5. — He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white 
raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I 
will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. 

In Rev. ii, 7, 10, 11, 17; iii, 5, promises of life, etc., to all 
who overcome, who endure to the end. 

Rev. ii, 9. — I know thy works, and tribulation, and poverty, (but thou 
art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which saj^ they are Jews, and 
are not, but are the sj^iagogue of Satan. 

Rev. ii, 20-22. — Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, be- 
cause thou sufierest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a proph- 
etess, to teach, and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to 
eat things sacrificed unto idols. And I gave her space to repent of her 
fornication ; and she repented not. Behold I will cast her into a bed, and 
them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they 
repent of their deeds." 

John XV, 4.— "Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear 
fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine ; no more can ye except ye abide 
in me." 

I. Sam. x, 5, G, 9. — After that thou shalt come to the hill of God, where 
is the garrison of the Philistines : and it shall come to pass, when thou 
art come thither to the city, that thou shalt meet a company of prophets 
coming down from the high place with a psaltery, and a tabret, and a 
pipe, and a harp, before them ; and they shall prophesy : and the Spirit 
of the Lord will come upon thee, and thou shalt prophesy with them, and 
shalt be turned into another man. And it was so, that, when he had 
turned his back to go from Samuel, God gave him another heart : and all 
those signs came to pass that day " 

1. Sam. xxvi, 14 — And David cried to the people, and to Abner the son 
of Ner, saying, Answerest thou not, Abner? Then Abner answered and 
said. Who art thou that criest to the king ?" 

We have put in evidence all the Scriptures we need, and tar 

more than is necessary. If these prove it not, we claim it not. 

Both Dr. Graves and I will relv on such facts and Bible dec- 



Final Perseverance. 1125 

laratious as we can adduce in our first speeches here. We 
showed that angels fell. The purest of men — Adam and Eve 
fell. The strongest, wisest and best fell— David, Saul, Solomon 
and Peter, as noted examples; can man die when thus fallen? 
If so, our proposition is sustained. If they cannot, Baptist 
doctrine as held by Dr. Graves is all false, and hardshell — 
true fatalism established. We repeat, therefore, angels fell 
and were lost, Adam and Eve fell and were lost to salvation 
till heaven interfered, and all along examples are given in the 
Old Testament and ^ew. Peter gives them, Paul gives them, 
Jude gives them. They are made the occasion of solemn 
warning to all Christians "to take heed lest there be in any of 
us a heart of unbelief in departing from the living God." My 
proposition is sustained. It is possible for a truly regenerated, 
adopted child of God so to apostatize as finally to be lost. — 
[ Time out. 



1 1 26 The Great Carrollton Debate, 



DR. GRAVES' FIRST REPLY. 



Mr. President. — Of all the propositions we have had be- 
fore us, this by far the most important. Former ones had 
only reference to the externals of Christianity, the visible 
tests and proofs of-our relations to Christ, but this question in- 
volves the verv foundation of Christianitv itself. With respect 
to the former, we concede that one may err through ignor- 
ance and the influence of false teachers and yet be saved, 
though all the precious present blessings promised to obedi- 
ence are lost, while all false teachers will be fearfullv 
punished — yet concerning tbe foundation upon which this 
doctrine rests a mistake is fatal to the soul's eternal salvation. 
Conscientious honesty does not enter into the matter at all. 
The man who built his house upon the sand was as honest 
and conscientious as the man who built upon the rock. 

]N^ow if I understand the ground-rock upon which the salva- 
tion of any man rests, it is the Covenant of Redemption 
entered into between three equal persons in the Godhead, 
which contract originated the three relations now exis,ting 
between these beings, revealed to us in the Bible — as those of 
Father, Son and Holy Spirit — the Father superior to the Son, 
and the Holy Spirit the inferior and servant of both — i. e., ihe 
being who represented the dignity, rights and honor of the 
eternal Godhead, taking the name and accepting to assume 
the relation of Father ; the second being, that of Son and 
servant to him, and the third person to be the servant of both 
the Father and of the Son. 

Xow to discuss this question properly, this Covenant in all 
its parts and provisions must needs be developed, and then 
all those passages of Scriptures which are usually urged 
against the security of a child of God explained so as to agree 
with this Covenant ; for we both grant that the Word of God 
never contradicts itself. From an examination of the Coven- 
ant of Redemption, we can learn whether it is provided that 
all those embraced in this Covenant, and to whom the full 
efficacy of the atonement is applied, shall finally be saved 
through the power and faithfulness of God, or whether their 
salvation is conditioned on their own acts or good works after 
they have beenjustified, adopted and accepted in the Beloved. 
All can see that by the provisions of this Covenant alone must 



Final Perseverance. 1127 

all the Scriptures be interpreted, and without a proper under- 
standing of the provisions of the Everlasting Covenant, I do not 
believe man or angel can understand the Scriptures bearing 
upon man's salvation — they will appear contradictory to him. 

I have said this much, Mr. President, as explanatory of what 
I now say. Two days were originally allotted to this question, 
the least possible time in which anything like an investiga- 
tion of this subject can be made, but by agreement one of 
these was cut off and added to the first proposition, and we 
have but two hours each to present our views upon this all 
important question. It cannot be discussed in this time. 
Every minister present is aware of this. We can scarcely 
glance at it — Eld. Ditzler has not presumed so much as to 
allude to the ground of a sinner's salvation — to develop the 
divine plan b}^ which any mortal can be saved. He has 
only hastily thrown before us sundry passages of Scriptures 
that apparently support his affirmative, and of course all that's 
left for me to do is to show that ^Ae^ do not teach the final 
condemnation of a child of God — but I have no time to un- 
veil the Solid Rock upon which the ultimate salvation of each 
child of God is secured. We cannot discuss this question at this 
time — and I do therefore respectfully propose to Eld. Ditzler 
a full discussion of this question with him at some future day 
in the capital city of my State, when every word uttered by 
us shall be taken down by two competent reporters and pub- 
lished as spoken. I propose this, not because I am not 
prepared now to discuss it for, as you may judge from these 
MSS. [exhibiting a large pile of MSS.] I was never better 
prepared upon any question than upon this, but time is insuffi- 
cient, and I do it mainly because thousands and tens of thou- 
sands of professed Christians are in doubt about what the 
Scriptures do teach about it and desire to examine it — and if 
thus presented would read it when otherwise they would not. 

With this explanation and proposition, I shall simply glance 
at the question- — notice the grounds of the salvation of any, 
and meet as many of his objections as time will allow. I s^ub- 
mit a few postulates : 

1. It is admitted by all Evangelical Theologians, that every 
soul of Adam's family is lost^ spiritually dead in tresspasses and 
in siyis. That every one born of woman is naturally depraved 
— -and has no natural taste or desire for, but an invincible 
repugnance to, holiness and true godliness. 

2. No one can quicken himself, no more awaken from this 
spiritual death than a dead man ; while in this condition his 
heart is closed as a sepulchre ; he cannot hear, see or feel a 
spiritual desire or emotion. 



1 1 28 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

3. If any are awakened, quickened into life, the Spirit of 
God must do it. The voice of the Son of God that awakened 
Lazarus and that will finally wake the dead, must awaken him 
to spiritual life. 

4. This resurrection from a death in sin, this quickening of 
the Spirit, is the first act in the sinner's salvation. " You 
hath he quickened — made spiritually alive — who were dead in 
tresspasses and in sins. "Whose heart the Lord opened, etc. 

IF this is not admitted then we have to do with a Pelagian, 
an infidel and not a Christian — a believer in the Bible, and 
not an evangelit:'aL 

5. All dead sinners are not quickened and made spiritually 
alive — renewed in the image of God and made heirs of grace 
and glory. All men's hearts are not opened so that they 
attend to the word spoken — to understand. They certainly 
arenoty no man will say so — can say so and believe the Bible, 
or believe what he sees around him. Thousands under 
the sound of the gospel from this State annually, in their 
natural state of death, die and go down to hell. Who will 
deny this ? 

These postulates are invincible facts. It devolves upon 
my opponent as much as upon myself to explain any 
objections that skertics ma}^ raise. To say that all are not 
saved because God could not save all, as well as some, would 
limit his power. It must be because in the exercise of His 
own sovereign will, and in the purposes of His grace He saw 
fit not to save all. He is no more under obligation to save 
any one of Adam's fallen race than He is to save the fallen 
angels. No reverent being in the universe will say that God 
is under any obligation to save the fallen angels, or any one 
of them. If He should see fit for reasons all His own 
to save one in each hundred, or one in each thousand 
of them, the rest would have no cause to complain. It 
would be an act of sovereign mercy in Him to save one sinner 
of Adam's race — and no one can justly charge Him with in- 
justice should He save none. Now I will briefly advance my 
understanding of His revealed Word — and if any one has more 
light or a theory more Scriptural, I shall be delighted to 
receive it. 

Before noticing his Scriptures I notice the three remarks 
with which he prefaced them. 

1. " That His impossible, for me to sustain the negative from the 
very nature of the case,'' etc. 

If I can produce one plain, unequivocal passage of Scripture 
declaring that the true child of God shall never utterly fail of 
grace, that the once justified shall never be condemned — the 



/^ 



Final Perseverance. 1129 

once saved shall never perish, then will I establish the nega- 
tive against all the suppository cases and objections he has 
brought or may bring to support his affirmative. It is a 
principle in iaw that "no number of difficulties or objections 
unless they amount to an impossibility, affect a clear state- 
ment of fact !" Now I shall not only produce one such, but a 
score of passages, as well as the Covenant by which man 
is saved and the very genius of Christianity. 

2. His second remark was that he and those who believe 
with him are safe anyhow, if 1 prove my negative, and safe if I 
do not. 

My opponent has uttered many unscriptural and wild asser- 
tions during this protracted discussion, but no one in my 
opinion wilder or wider of the truth than this ; for if he can 
establish the truth of his proposition upon the ground he has 
laid down, I mean because of the reasons he gives, then, as I 
understand my Bible, he is not safe, but is a lost soul, and all who 
hold with him as certainly lost as this Bible is true : for, he not 
only strikes the foundation from beneath his own feet, but he 
blots the plan of salvation from the face of earth. I as conscien- 
tiously believe this as I believe that Christ is the Son of God. 
If any man's salvation, first or last, depends upon his own 
works to secure it, he is lost, as sure as there is a God and 
this is his Bible. If Eld. Ditzler depends on his own works 
and endeavors, to secure the grace or remain in the grace of 
God, then he is this hour a lost man — however conscientious or 
secure he mav feel, he is like the man in his sand-based house 
before the tempests and the flood came. I believe the majority 
of all who have gone down to despair from the " Churches" 
and conQTCc^ations of Protestant as well as of Catholic 
Christendom, have done so trusting to this very doctrine— that 
their justification before God, and final salvation with God 
depended in some sense, more or less, in their performing their 
part of the contract — upon overt acts, purely their own. jSTine- 
ty-nine hundredths of the professed Christian world is 
embarked to-day in this frail rushbark of their own con- 
struction. 

3. I say it may well comport with the moral government of 
God to warn those lie designs to save from falling as one of the 
effectual means to guard them against it. If we cannot see 
this now, who see all things here as through a glass darkly, 
we may see it very clearly in the light of that cloudless day. 

I^ow I will suggest three things. 

There are but three conceivable grounds of a sinner's salva- 
tion. (1). By grace only. (2). By works only or (3) By a 



1 130 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

mixture of grace and works. Upon one of these we all rest 
to-day, who entertain any hope of final salvation. 

If I am saved, it is because I rest on the first ground, for 
on this alone I first trusted and on this I have builded 
and now rest all my hopes, and if it is false I am lost — for I 
have nothing else under me. 

Now that this is the unmistakable teaching of the Word of 
God. I submit the following : 

''For by grace are ye saved through faith; ^^ * * " Not of 
works, lest any man should boast." 

In connection with which read Rom. iii. 27, 28, 29. 

" Where is boasting then ? It is excluded. By what law ? of works ? 
Nay ; but by the law of faith." " Therefore we conclude that a man is 
justified by ifaith without the deeds of the law." 

If it is said that saving faith is the overt act of the creature, 
then read Eph. 2: 8-10. 

" For by grace are ye saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves : 
it is the gift of God." 

The j^oiver and disposition to exercise this faith is the gift 
of God, and therefore ot grace. Paul explains this. 

" Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace: to the end the 
promise might be sure to all the seed ; not to that only which is of the 
law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham ; who is the father 
of us ah."— [Eph. 2: 8-10. 

In no other way could salvation be made sure to any of 
" the seed.'' If the Scriptures teach anything it is that we 
cannot be saved by works. 

" Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in 
his sight."— [Rom. 3: 20. 

There is no article in the original — and it should read "by 
deeds of law," of any law, moral or ceremonial. 

'Now Eld. Ditzler professes to afi&rm with me that we are 
saved by grace, but you noticerl he did not say, and he will 
not say -'by grace only.'' He dci ' s that we are saved by works 
— but his speech showed that he meant "works alone" for he 
did assert throughout, and it was the only ground he did pre- 
sent, that we are saved by our own endeavors in part — and 
for and in consideration of our own endeavors — works, and 
this places him squarely upon the third ground I supposed — 
partly by the grace of God, and partly by works, overt 
acts of our own, and here is where I have always understood 
Methodists to stand with all Arminians and ritualists — and all 
Arminians are Ritualists necessarially for they all subvert the 
ordinances by making them '^ sacraments" — "means of 
grace" to the sinner, and thus, they are fallen from grace by 
rejecting it as the only ground of salvation, and this is what I 
understand to mean by "falling from grace." 

" Christ is become of no eftect unto you, whosoever of you are justified 
by the law ; ye are fallen from grace." — Gal. 5; 4. 



Final Perseverance. it.^i 



That such a course as is indicated here, teaching or believing 
that vve must be saved partly by works would be a virtual 
rejection of the system of grace for salvation for a system of 
works. Since not to take Christ for a whole and perfect 
Savior is to reject Him altogether. 

IS'ow I will strike away my opponent's sand bank that he 

rests upon, by one unmistakable passage. 

And if by grace, then is it no more of woiivs : otherwise grace is no more 
grace. But if it be of works, then it is no more grace ; otherwise worli 
is no more work. — [Rom. xi, 6. 

The apostle teaches if we admit that we are saved by grace 
in part, then it must be that we are saved by grace altogether 
— without any mixture of works, or mere creature acts, else it 
could not be called grace — as it could not be unless all grace. 
On the other hand if we claim or think that we are saved, in 
the least sense, by some act our own, or that our salvation is 
conditioned upon our works — acts — then it must be true that 
we are saved altogeher by works without any mixture of 
grace, else it could not be called works, as it could not be un- 
less all works. 

Suppose in passing through here 1 lost my horse, and I have 
only fifty dollars — not sufficient to buy another — and njy 
brother, J. B. Crouch here, has one worth one hundred and fiftv 
dollars, but be does not feel able to give him to me, but in the 
generosity of bis generous heart he says " give me the fifty dol- 
lars and take the horse, you must not be hindered in the Mas- 
ter's business." E'ow after I have left should he say he gave 
me the horse, he would utter a falsehood, for it was not a gift, 
and should I assert that I bought him, I would utter a false- 
hood, for it was not a purchase any more than a gift — it was 
neither. To be a gift it must all be given ; to be a purchase 
it must be altogether paid for. I leave my opponent hope- 
lessly impaled upon this third horn of the trilemma. If 
he takes either ground fully he is ruined inevitably. If he 
says by grace only, he surrenders his conditional salvation, and 
the possibility of a child of God being lost. If he says by 
works only, he evidently renounces Christianity altogether, 
and if he says, as he does, partly by grace and partly by works, 
— creature endeavors, he impales himself upon the plainest 
statements of the Word of God. Mark my prophecy. Eld. 
Ditzler will not attempt to extricate himself from this third 
horn, but will swing around upon it forever. 

Novv I claim that I have by the Word utterly refuted the 
theory (>f Arminianism and established the grand and glorious 
fact that if we are saved by grace, ours is an unconditional 
salvation, and that there can be no possibility of an adopted 



1 132 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

child of God being lost. The very supposition of its possibility 
is precluded by the Word of God, and therefore all those pas- 
sages claimed by my opponent as militating against the doc- 
trine, do so only apparently, since he will not claim that the 
Scriptures contradict themselves. 

The better in my next speeches to break the force he has 
given to all these passages, I will briefly sketch one feature 
of the extensive preparation I had made for this question. 

It is one feature in the "Covenant of Redemption" upon 
which reposes all my hope of salvation. I prefer to denominate 
it thus rather than " Covenant of Grace,' since there have been 
many gracious covenants made with man, securing many bless- 
ings, temporal and spiritual, but there is, and never was but 
the one Covenant of Redemption. If we can only rightly under- 
stand that covenat, with its conditions and promises, we shall 
aofree concernino^ the salvation of those on whose behalf that 

t-/ CD 

covenant was entered into. In the proper discussion of this 
question, here is where my opponent should have begun. He 
should have either denied the existence of such a Covenant, 
which would be tantamount to denying salvation to any of 
Adam's race or, liave shown that it was made with fallible, 
sz7//^<^ man, without a surety, and therefo^^e liable to be broken. 
Upon which proposition it would inevitably follow that no 
one could be saved, for such a covenant was made with Adam 
when innocent and holy as the representative of the race, and 
by the violation of it he not only forfeited his own title to life, 
but that of all his seed. Or he should have shown that having 
a surety he failed to fulfill the Covenant for man. In 
a former proposition (on I. B.) you remember he did affirm it 
was made with Abraham, and that Christ became surety to 
Abraham that the Father would fulfil His promises ! This is 
absurd as it is novel, to say the least, and leaves all who lived 
before Abraham without a savior! 

Such being the importance of this covenant, I shall give the 
larger part of my hour to the development and elucidation, of 
one feature of it, and if I shall be able to establish it upon 
its true grounds I will thereby not only refute his position but 
prove the negative of this proposition, and then I will spend 
the remaining time in noticing his objections and difficulties ^-c. 

There was a Covenant entered into by the three equal Per- 
sons, or Existences in the Godhead, concerning the redemption 
of the physical world, considered as cursed for man's sin, and for 
the ultimate salvation of a population sufficient to inhabit it, 
so that the dishonor put upon the universe might be remov(^d. 
There was a perfect agreement among themselves. In this 



Final Perseverance. 1133 

covenant the Godhead assumed with respect to each other and 
the race, the three relations of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. 

That this Covenant was made b}^ the Father with the Son, 
while the Holy Spirit became the efficient agent in accom- 
plishino^ both the will of the Father and the Son, in the quick- 
ening of dead sinners, in sanctifying, sealing, supporting, and 
comforting, and finally, glorifying the redeemed hy Christ. 
That there was such a Covenant made before the world was 
I know of no sect or commentator of any denomination by any 
titled Evangelical that denies — Isa xxxxii, 6; viii, 54; x. 
Heb, viii, 26; xiii, 20. As in all covenants^ whether of abso- 
lute promise or conditional, there must be two parties. So in 
the Covenant of Redemption God himself, as Father, repre- 
senting the Godhead, is the part}^ contractor on Heaven's side. 

1. In this character God must be considered as an offended God, 
and his Government dishonored by the wilful violation of its 
law. There had been a covenant^ called ihQ first, because the 
first announced and known to man, and the first carried into 
execution, made with Adam in the state of innocency, and as 
the representative of his seed, but it was made w^ithout a 
surety, or mediator. Upon the ffdl of Adam, he forfeited 
life and salvation for himself and for all his seed, becom- 
ing corrupt and depraved in his own nature by reason of 
sin, and imparted this taint to his whole race — he begat chil- 
dren in his own likeness, sinfid. If Adam had fulfilled the 
conditions of that covenant of works, he would have saved his 
race from death and the world forever more. His race was in 
him, he stood for it. God treated with his children in him, 
so he did in the covenants he ma<le with Koah, Abraham 
and David. This is an important fact. 

2. But God was to be res^arded as entertainins^ iDurposes of 
grace and mercy for the lost before the world was. So we are 
said to be saved in time according to his own purpose and 
^race given in covenant before the world was. 2 Tim. i, 9. 
This purpose was an absolute sovereign purpose, and in 
its operations partial. Myriads of angels were fallen, the 
whole race prospectively seen as lost. He passed by angels — - 
the nobler creatures. He did not take hold of the seed of 
Adam — which would have been all natural men, the world 
at large, but of Abraham, i. e. that seed to whom the cove- 
nant with Abraham was made his Spiritual seed — distinct, 
yet in niimbers uncounted. 

3. As party contracting, God is considered as representing 
the eternal and inflexible justice of the Throne of the God- 
head. 



1 134 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

That justice demanded that every sinner should receive the 
just recompense of reward. This cannot be set aside or com- 
promised for. His holj law must be magnified and made 
honorable in the sight of men, devils, angels, and God himself, 
God loved the creatures of his own hand before Jesus pro- 
posed to die for them. But when that love would flow out, 
immutable law and justice interposed. God could not and He 
would not override and break down these to save guilty 
man. He could not, and continue to be God, erect a throne 
of grace, on the ruins of both law and justice. Justice required 
that the law which was violated should be fully satisfied, and 
the honor thereof repaired by sufierings and obedience, the 
former such as might satisfy the penal sanction of the law, and 
the latter tho preceptive part of it, comprising all together 
the fulfillment of all the righteousness God's law demanded. 

Now as Adam who had fallen could not undertake to do 
this for his seed who were fallen with him, and no one of 
his seed could do it for himself, it is evident they must die 
without mercy, unless a third party *' could be accepted to be- 
come surety for them— should undertake to become to them 
a second Adam standing ii] their room and stead, as they 
lav ruined by the breach of the covenant of works." 

I need say no more to show the necessity for a party to con- 
tract and stand surety for lost man. It must inevitably follow 
that those for tvhom he contracts, it he is a responsible surety, 
must be saved. Of all for whom he stands as surety, he is the 
Kedeemer. But he did contract to save the seed of Abraham 
■ — believers. Therefore, every one of the seed will be saved. 
That Christ is the party contracting on man's side, no one 
will question who understands and believes the Bible. 

When it was made, there was no one save the Godhead to 
UTidertake it, for it was made before the woj'ld was. 

God tho Father says, "Behold I have made a Covenant with 
my Chosen,'' Covenants, ^i/pzm^ of the Covenant of Redemption 
were made with distinguished persons representing their re- 
spective seed. With Adam, IsToah, with Abraham, Isaac and 
Jacob, and with David. 

All these were illustrations, types of Christ, and several were 
called Christ. Christ is called the second Adam. Christ is 
spoken of as Israel. "Thou art my servant, Israel, in whom 
I will glorify myself." Christ w^as Israel's representative, in 
whom God will be glorified. He is called Jacob. This 
is the generation of them that seek Him — that seek thy 
face O, Jacob. Ps xxiv, 6, i. e. that long for the appearing of 
Messias. It was on the occasion of bringing the Ark into the 
Tabernacle David had erected for it, and hence verse 7 fol- 



Final Perseverance. 1135 

lows. He is often called David. " Afterv^ard shall the chil- 
dren of Israel return and seek the Lord their God, and David 
shall be their king." He was an eminent type of Christ, and 
the Covenant made with him was an undoubted and illustrious 
type of the Covenant of Redemption or Grace, and the bene- 
fits of that Covenant are called the sure mercies of David, for 
they were sure to everj^ one of the seed he represented. If 
Sacred Scriptures mean anything, the benefits of the real Cov- 
enant of which Christ is surety must be sure to every one of 
His seed, and every son and daughter of Adam, that has ever 
been pardoned, justified, sanctified and adopted, that moment 
is accounted the seed of Abraham, being the child of God, for 
when adopted his name was written in the Lamb's Book of 
Life, and engraved upon the breast plate of the everlasting 
High Priest. Can such a one be lost? 

These typical Covenants being made with public persons 
representing their seed, it is logically concluded that the real 
Covenant typified by them was made with Christ, as the head 
and representative of the seed he took hold of— Abraham's 
Spiritual Seed. What is said in type is principally accomplished 
in the antitype, and therefore the promises are sure to all the seed. 
And the Holy Spirit calls Christ the second Adam. Kot be- 
cause he had Adam's depraved and fallen nature, but mani- 
festly because of their common office of Federal headship, and 
representation in the respective Covenants touching man's 
eternal happiness. 

Adam is called the first man, Christ the second. 1 Cor. xv. 
49. But only as the representative of the second Covenant— 
the second Federal head .of his seed. Therefore as the first 
Covenant was made with Adam as the head and representative 
of his natural seed, so Christ of His Spiritual seed. 

3. Adams natural seed bore his name. Ps. xxxix: 5-11. 
Surely every man — all adam^ — is vanity, i. e., all the descend- 
ants ot Adam. 

So the seed of Christ bears His name. ''Let every one who 
names the name of Christ," etc. " They were first called Chris- 
tians at Anti'och." 

We must conclude from what has been urged. 

1. That the Covenant of Redemption, called the "Covenant 
of Grace," not two but one, was not made with man — but before 
man w^as created. Types of it were made with men. 

2. That it was designed and hah been clearly revealed to be 
a Covenant of Grace, which excludes works as a condition 
of justification, etc. 

Believers are justified and adopted immediately upon being 



1 136 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



qinckenecl without any righteousness of their own intervening 
and with the selfsame righteousness which was wrought by 
Christ in his fulfillment of all righteousness. 

And this righteousness sajs an old d.vine, " is not imputed 
to them in its effects only ; so that their faith and repentance 
and obedience are therefore accepted as their evangelical 
nghteousness — justifying redemption before God — on which 
they are justified, but it is imputed to them in itself even as 
Adams sin" was. Eead Rom. v. 18-19. 

" It is said to be a better Covenant . . a sure Covenant 
to all the seed.'^ 

The conditions and promises of it^ if time permits, I will 
consider after noticing — 

FOE WHOM IT WAS CONTRACTED ON CHRIST's PART. 

This I suppose will be the Waterloo ground for the de- 
cision of this question to one of us, in the estimation of this 
audience. I wish especial attention to be paid to my state- 
ments that he may not mystify them in your minds by sub- 
tle sophism. 

1. He did not contract for the lost angels, nor for all' 
7nen. He only took hold of the "seed of Abraham," not of 
Adam. 

If he had taken hold of the nature of the lost angels, they 
would all have been saved. If of the seed of Adam, all men 
would have been saved, and XJniversalism would have been 
the true doctrine. But he contracted as surety, Mediator, only 
for "the seed of Abraham" — the elect of mankind. 

I know this is death to Arminianism, the natural religion of 
all natural men. They want to believe that they elect them- 
selves, and then Christ takes them into his Covenant. 
The Christian's will has been subdued to the will of God, and 
he is willing for God to be an absolute sovereign — and in his 
own experience he bioios it, if a Christian, and if not, he don't 
know it, and dislikes to receive it. We were made to love 
God because he first loved us. "We elected or chose him, 
because he first elected or chose us. Paul illustrates the 
union existing between the elect of God, by the relation 
existing between husband and wife, as God appointed it to be, 
indissoluble, the wife becoming "flesh of his flesh, and bone 
of his bone ;" and I see a similarity in origin of the love that 
besrat and cements the union. The wife does not choose the 
husband, but the husband the wife. It is not presumed that 
she loves and woos first, and begets love in the husband, but 
the husband elects and loves first, and wins her love by his 
own o'er mastering love, and sweetly constrains her to love 



Final Perseverance 1137 

and accept of liim, and though snbdued and constrained by 
love, she acts freely. Here is man's sovereignty and woman's 
free agency, and yet she will tell you she could not help loving 
him who foved her so devotedly, and surrendered herself to 
him to be influenced and controlled by him forever. 

We siog. Eld. Ditzler, and his brethren sing, and the Con- 
ference endorse it: 

"Why was I made to bear his voice, 

And enter wliile there's room, 
While thousands make a wretched choice 

And rather starve than come." 
'Twas the same love that spread the feast, 

Which sw^eetly forced me in, 

And perished in my sin. 
Else I had still refused to taste, 

I. It was the elect who were represented in the Covenant 
of Redemption by Christ. 

Proofs : They are called God's chosen — God's elect. Isa. 
xlii. 1; Heb. i. 13; Eph. v. 23. 

II. They are called '^ the heavenly men." Cor. xv. 47-48, 
in opposition to natural men. 

Every one of these that are made heavenly, Abraham's 
seed, shall bear the image of the heavenly man^ Christ. Cor. 
XV. V. 48e To all these Christ becomes a quickening spirit. 

As Adam's deadly efficacy extends to each one under it, 
so Christ's quickening and saving efficacy extends to each 
one he represents, if it did not, some would be deprived of the 
benefits purchased and paid for by the surety in their name, 
which is not consistent with the justice of God. 

Ergo. Each individual child of God must be saved, w^hen 
made a child, not at death. To say that one is lost, is to admit 
that all are lost — none are saved. 

This elect was Abraham's spiritual seed, the spiritual Israel, 
Gal. iii. 16 ; Ps- Ixxxix. 3-4. 

These are those whom he begets with the word of his 
truth. Jas. i. 18, and are born again. Pet. i. 23, whom he 
knew as his seed with His image on them. Isa. liii. 1-11 ; a 
seed, every one of which shall serve Him. Isa. i. 22-30 ; 
which shall be established and endure forever. Ps. Ixxxix. 
3, 29, 36 ; in a state of happiness. 

Christ is called — Israel, as he is Jacob — because he repre- 
sents the true spiritual Israel. All his seed will be justified. 
Isa. xiv. 25 ; Rom. v. 18 ; Isa. liii. 6 ; as our substitute all 
Israel. Lev. xvi. 21. All the spiritual ones, the Israel here 
by faith who looked through and beyond the tj^pe to the anti- 
type were remitted and saved. 

71 



1 138 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

But in what condition was this seed considered when Christ 
contracted for its salvation ? 

The seed Adam as representative in the Covenant of works 
was considered an upright seed. EccL vii. 29. 

But in Christ his seed was represented as a corrupt sin- 
ful mass — powerless to do good, or exercise a holy affection — - 
laden with guilt — sinking down to eternal death under the 
fierce wrath of God and the curse of His violated law. We 
said, and mark it, unable to do a single act pleasing to God. 
They that are in the flesh, cannot please God, etc. The carnal 
heart, etc. 

They were therefore considered as wholly unable to help 
themselves. Debtors, ten thousand talents, and nothing to pay. 

Criminal under just sentence of death. Depraved in heart 
and corrupt in every thought, and unable to change, lost and 
utterly ruined. The lost sheep of the house of Israel. In 
the first Covenant Adam, the first shepherd of all mankind, 
not only lost himself, but lost all the flock. Christ, the 
good Shepherd, and of Israel^ not of all mankind, will lose 
none, — (see hymn). 

But they were in the power of the Covenant of Redemption 
''considered as the objects Oi eternal sovereign and free love.'' 

When God elected them in Christ, he became prospectively 
their Father, and also to Christ. He loved them with an ever- 
lasting love. John xvii. 23-6. The son loved and accepted 
the gift, Eph. v. 2, and consented to represent them in the 
Covenant, and thus each one of the elect became his child, 
Heb. ii, 13. 

"It was owing to God's Sovereign love," says an Evangel- 
ical writer, "and mere good pleasure, that the elect, the seed of 
Abraham, and not others in the same condemnation, by the 
fealty of the first Covenant, were represented and contracted 
for by Jesus Christ in the second, that their names were put 
in the eternal contract, while those of angels and others were 
left out. They were the father's choice, and that was enough 
for Christ, and should be enough for us. "Even so Father, for 
so it seemed good in thy sight." Infidels may wrest this hard 
doctrine, more fully developed by Paul than any other Apos- 
tle, to their own destruction, but a host of the best and clear- 
est minds that have ever lived on earth have advocated it — 
as Augustine, Calvin, etc, and Knox, Henry — and it is crys- 
talized in the creeds of Presbyterians, Episcopalians, Metho- 
dists, as w^ell as Baptists. We see here no universal Atone- 
ment or Redemption. 

We have now seen who were the parties to the Covenant of 
Redemption or Grace, made before the world was, and for 



Final Perseverance. 1139 

whom it was undertaken. Here I need time to develop the 
teachings of the Word as to three additional features connect- 
ed with this Covenant. 

1. The characters Christ consented to take upon himself. 

2. The conditions ot the Covenant required of and consum- 
mated by Him. 

3. The promises of the Covenant made to Him by the 
Father to be fulfilled by Father and the Holy Spirit to Him 
and His seed. 

But I must say this, it was to do the ivillofHis Father that 
Christ volunteered to offer himself as a party to this Covenant. 

'^Lo I come to do thy will 0, God." It was the will of God 
that the works of Satan should be destroyed, and the world, 
redeemed from the curse, should be replenished with a right- 
eous population, and this number, no more and no less, he 
sovereignly chose and elected to I e saved, and denominated 
" the seed of Abraham," " the elect," the " Israel of God.' 
"The sheep of His pasture." These Christ accepted to under- 
take for, and to represent in the Covenant and discharge all 
the conditions for their salvation. 

" Thine thev were," " thou gravest them me," " all thine 
are mine, " Of all the Father hatli given me," etc. 

These were individually, personally, know^n to the Father, 
and to the Son before the world wr.s, if they will ever be 
known personalli/. If we admit the Omniscience of God we 
must admit this. 

The names of each one of these, chosen before the founda- 
tion of the world, were written in the Book of Life, and as 
these were given to the Son, this record is called the" Lamb's 
Book of Life.' 

" The foundation of this Covenant purposed by God, hath 
this seal" — (i. e., inscription on the seal). "The Lord knoweth 
them that are his." These were known and seen by Christ — 
he is said to have beheld his seed — to have seen the travail of 
his soul and have been satisfied with it. 

l!Tow Christ undertaking for these, consented to take upon 
himself a threefold character. 

1. That of Good Shepherd, who must lay down his life for 
his sheep, and every one of them must be be saved. He will 
lose not one. 

2. That of Kinsman Redeemer— thos6 he redeems will be 
saved. 

3. That of Surety, and each he stands for is by him made 
solvent. 

4. That of Priest, and while he lives they must live also. 
That Christ did assume these characters and consent to 



1 140 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

perform the offices imposed, as the second party in the Cov- 
enant of Redemption, I will not presume to intimate that any 
Christian man will deny. I can but glance at the first char- 
acter he assumed here. 

Iso thoughtful Bible reader but has been impressed with 
the frequency Christ is alluded to, and spoken of in both 
Testaments in the character of the Shepherd of his people. 

Jacob in his dying jprophecy speaks of Him as the Shepherd 
and Stone of Israel." Gen. xlix. 24. David, Ps. xxiii. 8, ad- 
dresses him as the Shepherd of Israel. Isaiah says of him, 
" He shall feed his fiock like a Shepherd. He shall gather 
the lambs with his arm and carry them in his bosom, etc. 
Paul speaks of him as ^' that Great Shepherd of the sheep." 
And Peter as '^ Shepherd and overseer of our souls,'' and Christ 
himself delighted in this character. He says, " I am the 
Good Shepherd : the Good Shepherd giveth his life for his 
sheep." I am the Good Shepherd, and I know my sheep, and 
am known of mine, and other sheep have I which are not of this 
fold — included in the Jewish nation — them also must I 
bring and they shall hear my voice^ and there shall be one flock 
and one Shepherd. 

Therefore when Christ said in another place that he was 
not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He 
meant the ''seed" of that true Israel, given him by the Father, 
scattered through all lands. 

We have seen that they were given unto Christ by the 
Father to be redeemed by the laying down of his life for them, 
as a Good Shepherd. If one sheep is lost, it will be a dis- 
honor to the Shepherd. He is responsible for their safety, not 
the sheep for their own, they are powerless either 1st, to save, 
or 2nd, to protect and keep themselves. It being impossible 
for them to do it, they are not required to do4t. The Shep- 
herd does it for them. 

Christ says, ''I caaie down from heaven, not to do mine own 
will but the will of Him that sent me, and this is the Father's 
which hath sent me, that of all ivhich he hath given me I should 
lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day " in 
glory and in his own likeness. 

!N"ow upon even this one of the three offices Christ has taken 
upon himself to secure man's salvation, I am willing to join 
the battle and rest the wbole issue of it. 

The Father certainly gave to his Son all that ever will be 
saved. ISTo Christian will deny it. He gave them to his son 
before they were saved, and in order that they might be saved. 
Thev were all seen bv Christ, and known to him, and thev 
were so numerous that he was satisfied with them. 



Final Perseverance. 1141 

Do you say if they will only come to Him — i.e. believe on 
Him ? Christ emphatically says " all the Father giveth me, 
shall come unto me" — for this was promised in the making 
of the Covenant, as we shall see — for all the Father gave His 
Son, He engaged to eiFectually draw unto him. It is upon this 
understanding Christ says ' they shall come^^ and that " J^o man 
can come unto me except the Father that sent me draw him," 
the Father has undertaken to draw to his son every one he 
gave him, and he does not leave that one to come himself, for 
he cannot do it, the Father must draw hard enough to over- 
come his natural disinclination to come, and thereby effectu- 
ally secure his coming to Christ ; and if he did this in the 
case of all men, then all men would come. Now the only 
question that remains is, will Christ save every such an 
one, every one drawn to him by the Father ? He does not 
leave us in doubt but declares upon his honor '' I will raise 
him up at the last day." John. vi. 39. 

If any one of these is lost at last, was he ever one of "the 
elect," was he ever given to Christ, was he ever a sheep? If 
so, he was known as such to Christ. He says: "I know my 
sheep and am known of mine," "and the sheep hear his voice 
and he calleth his own sheep by name," etc. John x. 3 and 
14. Now of all that are lost at the last day, Christ will say, " I 
never knew you," and this should settle this question in my 
favor. Should he lose one he would not accomplish the 
will of his Father, well known to his Son, — "and this is the 
Father's will who hath sent me, that of all which lie hath given 
me I should raise it up at the last day," and who are those 
given to the Son? 

" And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth 
the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life : and I will 
raise him up at the last day." — John vi. 40. 

If I have ever seen Christ as ray Savior, if I have ever be- 
lieved on him for one hour, if he has ever known me as a 
" sheep," as a child for one moment, then as Christ's words 
are true, he will preserve and love me to the end, and raise 
me up to glory with him at the last day. To deny it, is to 
put a falsehood into the lips of Christ, and I would not do it 
for millions of worlds. 

To say that Christ will ever lose a sheep, is to impeach his 
veracity, rob him of his power, and break him of his office. 

Difficulties and objections amount to nothing against his 
express word. Ten millions beyond my power to solve or an- 
swer do not amount to a shadotv of evidence. You must bring 
express declarations to the contrary from both the Father 



1 142 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and then what have you 
accomplished ? Made them contradict themselves, and de- 
stroyed the world's faith in God and the Bible. 

To say that an adopted child of God may finally be lost- 
one sheep perish from the fold of the Divine Shepherd, is to 
me a blasphemy heinous beyond my power to describe. 

Why sir, if Satan can wrest or lure one from his hands, he 
could all if he wished to, and if I am saved at last, I would 
be compelled to ascribe my salvation not to the power and 
faithfulness of Christ my Shepherd, but to the grace of Satan 
that he did not want me ! 

But with the pages of His blessed word before me, and my 
eye resting on this covenant, and the arms of my shepherd 
and Savior around me, I can sing — 

" Sure as His throne His promise stands 
If ]My God, my Hope, my Trust. 
I am found in Jesus' hands. 
My soul can ne'er be lost. 
His honor is engaged to save 

The weakest of his sheep, gave 
All whom his Heavenly Father 
His hands securely keep." 



Final Perseverance. 1143 



DR. DITZLER'S SECOND SPEECH. 

Gentlemen Moderators: — It is the last da}^ of our hard 
work, and Dr. Graves and I are not sorry. We are in fine 
humor, and discussing these points as men ought to do. The 
Doctor thinks we have not time enough — he laid away a great 
bundle of manuscripts he reserves for another day. Now that 
was sharp in the Doctor. He saw at once on hearing our 
speech that all the life was taken out of those manuscripts, and 
they would not bear reading. 

As to time, if this proposition was so important above the 
rest, why did he propose to me, as he did, to take off one ot 
the two days set for this proposition, and put it on the first 
proposition, giving us five days on it ? He has forgotten, that 
is all. His proposition to meet and debate four or five davs 
on this question of final perseverance we will promptly accept 
when he notifies us in due time. 

He says there are three possible grounds of salvation, (1) 
By works, (2) Grace, (3) By a mixture of both. We agree 
with him that salvation is purely a system of grace. He then 
tells us that the Episcopal creed is Calvinistic. True. But 
Weslev eliminated all the Calvinisticarticles, and of thethirtv- 
nine gave us twenty -five purely Arminian. We say man 
^' cannot of himself turn," but he can of himself refuse to 
receive grace, aid, help, and refuse to turn, and there is just 
where we are Arminian. We are passive in the work of 
conversion, but active in repentance and faith, throwing our- 
selves on his sovereign grace, finding grace to help in time of 
need. It is w^holly of his free grace bounteously bestowed 
that the free gift came upon all, and of his grace we are 
enabled to accept it, " embrace the promises," '' lay hold on 
eternal life." But we may " refuse," be " disobedient," " re- 
ject our God," and that is the capacity we have, and which 
capacit}^ Arminians avow we have. Much the Doctor says we 
all here — all Christian bodies here — will accept. 

It is "by grace only," yes, but if we do not repent, seek, 
find, embrace the promises, " hold fast the beginning of our 
confidence unto the eud," we have no benefit. 

He tells us Christ was the Shepherd, and God gave Him 
all who would believe. He ought to have added, for it w\^s 
of the twelve the language was used really, " and no one is 
lost but the son of perdition." It does not always depend on 



1 144 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

the shepherd simply, as the sheep may break out, and steal 
beyond protection, i^or are we to make illustrations go on 
all fours. 

He says the only question is, Will the converted be left to 
themselves? Grace, he says, is continued. " God never dis- 
inherits a child." Do children never disinherit themselves by 
leaving parents, rejecting their authority and assuming to act 
for themselves ? Thev are never disinherited, eh? Are not 
their names and part taken out of the book of life, " and out of 
the holy city, and from the things (promised) written in this 
book?" Rev. xxii. 19. If that is not disinheriting what is? 

He aims to offset my argument on Adam, Eve and the 
angels on the score that they were under the covenant of 
works, hence failing therein, they fell. We answer, 

1. If that were so, it holds not good, for if under a cove- 
nant of works, failure to do the work lost them their place, 
so, if under a covenant of grace through faith, unbelief, dis- 
belief, would lose them the o^race — thev would " fall from 
grace." Paul expressly tells us of parties who had " fallen 
from grace." We see the reason is wrong the possition un- 
tenable. 

2. It is not in proof that they w^ere under a system of works. 
It was as necessary for the angels to believe; for Adam and 
Eve to believe as it is for us. Want of faith in them would 
prove disastrous. 

He replies to my argument on Ezekiel — an argument of 

Scripture so clear, simple, direct, emphatic, that, it can't 

be misunderstood well — that by " righteous," we are simply 

to understand honest, etc. They were honest men! He says 

they were under the covenant of works I What does the good 

Doctor mean by this? Was Ezekiel then urging them all to 

continue in the covenant of works that they might live ? 

Were men saved that way then — justified — made righteous 

that way then — in David's, Abraham's, or Ezekiel's day ? 

Hear Paul, R.om. iv, 2-9: ''If Abraham were justified by 

works, he hath whereof to glory, but not before God. For 

what saith the Scripture ? Abraham believed God, and it " — 

believing God — "was counted to him for righteousness." 

Then the conclusion is drawn, " To him that worketh not, 

but believeth in him that justified the ungodly, his faith is 

counted for righteousness." There is the way they became 

righteous. How is it in David's day ? Paul continues : 

" Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man, unto whom 
God imputeth righteousness without works, Saying, blessed are they 
whose iniquites are forgiven, and whose sins are covered. Blessed is the 
man to whom the Lord will not impute sin. Cometh this blessedness 



Final Perseverance. 1145 

then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also ? for 
we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for rignteousness." — Romans, 
xiv, 6-9. 

Here you see '' righteousness " was the effect of faith, 

believing, the system of grace the Doctor told us of in his 

first speech on this proposition, and it was obtained " without 

works." And Abraham was thus justified, that he might be 

the father of all them that believe, that righteousness might 

be imputed to them also. Hence, when we are justified by 

faith, under a system of Grace, we " walk in the steps of that 

faith of our father Abraham," v. 12, " who is the father of us 

all," V. 16. To test this further, read Isaiah i, 11-16 ; Micah 

vi, 6; Psalms li, 1-10; Deut. vi, 4, 5, compared with Mark 

xii, 28-33, as samples of the spiritual force of their religion. 

In former propositions we discussed that matter enough. It 

is clear from Ezekiel, quoted in full in our opening speech 

this morning, that a truly regenerate man may fall away and 

be lost. 

He tells us Jesus '*• is security." He undertook the salvation 
of believers. Yes, ''all who believe," and he will save all 
who believe. But unless they believe — not did believe, but 
believe — present tense — all such he saves from sin, and will 
save from hell. 

He undertook the salvation of all men, if they will acceptthe 

terms, abide by them. It is wholly their fault if they are not 

saved. He never undertook to save an}^ morally responsible 

being unconditionally. He gives the needed grace, they must 

accept, receive, live in it, -'abide in Him," else they are cut 

off*, cast forth, wither, John xv. Acts ii, 47, "the saved," as it 

is in the Greek, is quoted. But they surely were not saved in 

heaven, but from their sins in that case. 

" Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into tne 
kingdom of heaven ; but he that doeth the will of my father which is in 
heaven." — Matt, vii, 2 

He quotes the words addressed to the rejected or lost of 
Matt, vii, 23, as if every lost one never had known God, never 
been pardoned, etc. But simply says it of those who never had 
known God, as the vei-y preceding verse showed. They only 
said "Lord, Lord," as contrasted with those who do the will of 
his Father in heaven — v. 21, 22. 

John X, 28 — "I^either shall any pluck them out of my hand." 
We endorse all that. If they could we would have no show 
at all. If the devil could pluck us out of his hand, we would 
have no chance. But we are moral agents. We are not pas- 
sive machines. We may escape out of his hands. Grievous 
wolves may enter in, and devour all who wander from their 



1 146 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

shepherd. These wolves will enter id, '' not sparine^ the flock." 
Acts XX, 27, 28. 

He argues that if the devil could he would take all. It im- 
plies greater strength in him than in God to do so. l^ay, he 
would have to " overcome the power of God." Now it is a 
fact, 

1. That Satan did overcome, seduce, destroy angels. "VYas 
that overcoming the power of God? It was not a question of 
power, but of man's free action and choice, in yielding to bad 
influences, or of angels doing so. 

2. Adam was overcome, and it was not a question of power, 
but of choice, he yielding to seductive influences. In all this 
we learn, 

3. That it is not for the good of the moral and intellectual 
universe that man be deprived of the value, pleasure, and dig- 
nity of choice — of free agency. In it alone is there such a 
type of intellectual and moral dignity and grandeur, and such 
capacity for happiness and bliss as is pleasing to God, and 
compatible with his wisdom. The qualification for real men- 
tal and moral happiness is freedom of choice. Nay, we hesi- 
tate not to say there cannot exist man or angel without it. 
There could not be created a being of intellect, emotion, de- 
sires, and sympathies, without this. The absence of choice, 
freedom, is the absence of all intellectual force, moral quality, 
or capacity for pleasure. 

4. The position of Dr. Graves destroys all responsibility and 
individuality in man. The absence of choice, of freedom and 
corresponding responsibility for his action, robs all actions of 
moral tone. There is no moralitv in his doins^s or motives, 
aims. His actions have no more of moral quality than the 
noise of a wheel or the sound of an anvil. 

You can see the force of this, too, in the illustration of my 
brother. He hides the diamond in a safe — it is shut up in se- 
curity — safe. But, 

1. The diamond is purely passive, has no volition. Its in- 
strinsic value is in itself. But the Christian's value is in being 
abroad, doing good, in conflict with the world and its dangers. 
Hence he must watch and pray, and guard against the evils 
of the world. 

2. We are not passively put away in security, but are to 
abide in Him, walk in Him, live in Him. All the Scriptures 
on the subject show that it is perfectly and constantly possible 
for us to "fall away," "stumble," lose our crown, make ship- 
wreck of faith, fail to abide in Him — be cast forth and wither. 

In no instance is absolute safety or security spoken of as be- 
longing to us. In all cases it is conditional on our adherence 



Final Perseverance. 1147 

to Christ through an act of living faith. This faith can die out 
in the heart; a heart of unbelief can come in, and we make 
shipwreck of faith. 

Paul tells (1 Tim. v. 8-12) of those who " denied the faith," 
of others who were believers who now from their course are 
fallen, "having damnation, because they have cast off their 
first faith." Yea, v. 15, " Some are already turned aside after 
Satan." Where is the safe now ? Are they shut up in it ? 

We wish you to take in view the points we made. 1. It 
cannot be proved that a man may not fall away so as to be 
lost. It is nowhere so stated — nowhere so argued in Scrip- 
ture. 2. We are in all parts of the Scriptures warned, ad- 
monished, counselled in every possible way against the great 
danger of apostacy. Xot only so, but it is constantly recur- 
ring. It is in all parts of the Bible. To give it still more 
force Paul and Peter tell of the fall of angels and of our parents 
in the garden, and base their warning to us on these very im- 
pressive examples. Not content with all that, they tell us of 
the overthrow in the wilderness, and thus enforce their ad- 
monitions. iS[ow we sa}^ it is simply monstrous that all this 
could be where there was no possible danger. Let us look 
at it closely here. We affirm — deny it if you can — that no 
moralist or wise legislator ever holds up threats and constant- 
ly warns dangers that do not and cannot exist. But you make 
God do this thing, and under such circumstances and illus- 
trations — pointing to actual cases of the most fearful and im- 
pressive kind, where the parties did fall and into utter ruin 
and loss — Angels, Adam and Eve, and those in the wilder- 
ness, yet tell me it implies nothing ! ! 

Again : Is it truthful, is it honest, to tell of a great and con- 
stant danger, and warn against it, and from the first lessons of 
the Bible to the very last chapter in it, where we are warned 
that if we abridge his word he will take our part out of the 
Lamb's Book of Life, our part of the Holy City, &c., when 
there is no such danger? 

Again : Is it safe, is it wise in us thus to discredit the 
solemn assurances, warnings and fearful threats of all the in- 
spired penmen, where their language is so pointed and clear? 
Can we wonder if Universalists and skeptics explain away 
the idea of hell, and tell us that all those warnings, illustra- 
tions and declarations are mere "scare crows?" It is not 
safe, it is not wise. On the contrary, it sets precedents of the 
most dangerous kind, and they will be followed by evil con- 
sequences. 

We have avoided any metaphysical arguments on this ques- 
tion, because one dav would not allow of such a course. We 



1 148 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

have appealed to the plain Scriptures, with but little of criti- 
cism even ; for it does not need it. Then when you come to 
the strong arguments Paul and Peter use, each following up 
with example in the church in their day who had fallen— who 
were delivered over to the devil whose latter condition was 
worse than the former before they were converted — when these 
facts are set forth, and made the grounds of additional and tre- 
mendous appeal, it is a fearful impeachment of divine veracity, 
sincerity and honest}' to assert that there exists no danger — no 
possibility of a truly regenerate man so falling away as to be 
finally lost. 

We call your attention to a few of these already put in evi- 
idence, for it is useless to add more. It all those are untrue, 
so are the rest. If all these are mere scare-crows, so are the 
rest, and adding multitudes would do no good. 

"For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of 
the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, but a certain fearful 
looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the 
adversaries. He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two 
or three witnesses : of how much sorer j)unishment, suppose ye, shall he 
be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and 
hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an 
unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace ? For we 
know him that hath said, Vengeance belovgeth unto me, I will recompense, 
saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people." — Hebrews 
X. 26-30. 

Here now Paul advises, verse 23, to " hold fast the profes- 
sion of our faith without wavering." He tells them they were 
" illuminated," and what wonderful sufferings they had en- 
dured, verses 32-34. He warns them, verse 35, not to " cast 
away" their confidence which hath great recompense of re- 
ward. Hence we see what excellent Christians they were 
whom he addresses. Yet such people are told they may '' sin 
willfullv after that we have received the knowleds^e of the 
truth." Yea he may tread "under foot the Son of God," 
and "count the blood of the covenant wherewith he was 
sanctified, an unholy thing," and he "hath done despite unto 
the Spirit of Grace," where is the safe all that time ? The 
safe that secures asrainst damnation must be a safe that secures 
against such fearful disorder as this. Hence he asks " of how 
much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he [who thus acts] 
be thought worthy," in view of God's just indignation ! Does 
all this mean nothing? If this can be explained away, so can 
the threats and strong declarations as to the damned, and the 
iiopes of the righteous. 

Let us select again 2 Peter, ii. 4, 15, 19-22 inclusive. First 
he tells us thus: For if God spared not the angels that sinned, 
but cast them down to hell, etc., and spared not the old world," 



Final Perseverance. - 1149 

etc. J so evil doers shall perish now — those who "have forsaken 

the right way, and are gone astray, following the way of 

Balaam." After this solem preparation of the mind to be 

rightly impressed and admonished, he then says: 

" While they promise them hberty, they themselves are the servants of 
corruption : for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in 
bondage. For if after they liave escaped the polkitions of the world 
through the knowledge of the Lord and Savior .Jesus Christ, they are 
again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them 
than the beginning. For it had been better for them not to have known 
the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from 
the holy commandment dehvered unto them. But it is happened unto 
them according to the trUe proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit 
again ; and, The sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."— 
II Pet. ii. 19-22. 

Here you see the men are so gone astray as to offer liberty 
to others, while they are themselves the servants of corrnption. 
'"The}^ allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much 
wantonness, those who ivere clean escaped from them who live in 
error," v. 18. He then urges, "of whom a man is overcome, 
of the same is he brought into bondage," v. 9. Here the 
party had "clean escaped from them who live in error" or sin. 
Yet thev are "overcome," and "brouo^ht into bondas-e." It is 
not the power of God that is overcome. It is the righteous — 
the one who had clean escaped from sin. He then tells us, v. 
20, they escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowl- 
edge of the Lord Jesus Christ. They become entangled in 
the world again, "and overcome." He tells us of all such 
"that their latter end is worse with them than the beginning." 
Yea, - 

" For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righte- 
ousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy command- 
ment delivered unto them. But it is happened unto them according to 
the true proverb. The dog is turned to his own vomit again ; and, The 
sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire."— II Peter, ii. 21-22. 

Such is the testimony of Peter who had some experience in 
being sifted. Does all this mean nothing? Could an inspired 
man of God thus write, speaking too, so earnestly to man's 
consciousness, to the deepseated eye of the soul, telling him the 
very truth he feels in the depths of his soul, in the frail- 
ties, the dangerous surroundings of life, and yet mean nothing 
at all? It cannot be— no. it cannot be, — \^Time out. 



1150 The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. GRAVES' SECOND REPLY. 



Mr. President.-— As we meet again to fully discuss this 
questiou, that above every other interests me, I will, in the 
two remaining half hours available to me, 1. Present Eld. 
Ditzler with plain, positive, unequivocal passages that estab- 
lish, bej^ond controversy, the negative of the proposition, and 
2. ISTotice, so far as time will allow, all the passages he may 
bring forward, that apparently militate against the positive ones. 

One of the promises of the Covenant of Redemption, made 
by the father to the people he gave to his son. 

1 "I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts; 
and I will be to them a God^ and they shall be to me a people : and they 
shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, say- 
ing, Know the Lord : for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. 
For I ^Yill be merciful to the unrighteousness, and their sins and their in- 
iquities will I remember no more." — Heb. viii. 10-12' 

]^ow two things are provided for in this Covenant. 1. That 
God will iiever turn awa}^ from any member of the Covenant, 
and 2. That no one ever interested in it shall depart from God 
to be lost. 

2 "And I will make an everla&i:ing covenant with them, that / will not 
turn aivay from them, to do them good ; but I will put my fear in their 
heart, Xh2^ they shall not depart from ???e," — Jer. xxxii. 40. 

To add to this, seems like attempting to add strength to the 
foundation of the earth, or the very throne of God. But we 
have to combat with a singular species of religious iniidelit}'. 

3 " Likewise, I say unto you, there is joy in the presence of the angels of 
God over one sinner that repenteth." — Luke xv, 10. 

How can this be^ if there is a possibility of that sinner 
falling from grace in six months, six weeks, or six da3'S ? 
Would there not be folly in such joy ? Would it not be pre- 
mature? If Eld. Ditzler's position is true, that sinner migiht 
have fallen from grace before the angel that started with the 
news had reached heaven, if he should chance to be detained 
as Ions: as the ano^el was that God sent to answer Daniel's 



prayer — twenty-one days. What then ! Angels rejoicing over 
one thev thou2:ht was saved, but who misrht at the same 
moment, be cursing God ! 

'^o, if there is joy in the presence of the angels when a 
sinner truly repents, we may know that that sinner is that 
moment truly saved ; and the angels may as well rejoice then. 



Final Perseverance. 1151 

as when they see him glorified — for his repentance was a proof 

of his being called of God, and no one ever was called who 

will not be glorified. 

4 "And we know that all things work together for good to them that love 
God, to them who are the called according to his purpose." — Eom. viii. 28. 

Those who are called of God will love God, and love him 

to the en4, and nothing will work for their distraction, but for 

their good. 

6 "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to he conformed 
to the image of his Son, that lie might be the firstborn among, many 
brethren." — Rom. viii. 29. 

God did not predestinate them because thej were, or after 
they were, conformed, but in order that they might be con- 
formed to the image of his Son. 

6 " Moreover, whom he did predestinate, them he also called : and whom 
he called, them he also justified s and whom he justified, them he also 
glorified. "—Rom. viii. 30. 

God, in all these acts, moves first. ISFo one ever was justified 

by iaith for one moment, who was not predestinated and called j 

and no one was ever justified for one moment, who will not 

be finally glorified: and this settles the question. 

? "What shall we then say to these things? If God he for lis, Who can be 
against us? "—Rom. viii. 31. 

I say glory to God in the highest, for this overcoming grace* 
I say no power on earth or under the earth can be against us 
successfully — triumphantly. We will, we must, be more than 
conquerors through Him who loved us. What will Eld. Bitzler 
say to these things ? He will try to do them all away, and 
say that we are left in our own power, and to our own keeping, 
and that we can be, and are in the greatest danger of being, 
against ourselves to our own ruin ! He will deny that our 
salvation depends upon the love of Christ and of God being 
continued to us, and the continuous keeping of the Almighty 
power of God, and insist that it depends upon our continuing 
our love to God, and our keeping ourselves, not by an 
implanted and imperishable faith, which is the gift of God, 
but by a perishable faith— the mere overt act of a weak, change- 
able creature. And to refute these views I quote further : 

8 " He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how 
shall he not with him also freely give us all things? " — Rom. viii. 32. 

I think he will, and I know he will, and he will certainly 
give us what we need the most, and as it is natural for the re- 
deemed soul to fear lest he might fall— the very thing of all 
others he don't want to do — God gives us this promise to re- 
assure and comfort us. 

9 " Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present 



1 152 The Great Carrollton Debate* 

you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy."— 
Jude i. 24. 

If he does this for one child, he does it for every child, 
and therefore no one can so fall as to be lost. 

But he does keep every child by his own and not by the 
power in the child. 

10 " Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready 
to be revealed in the last time." — 1 Peter i. 5. 

Peter here flatly contradicts Eld. Ditzler, who dares' to 
affirm that our being kept unto salvation, depends, in whole 
or in part, on ()urselves, while Peter says " by the power of 
God" and that every one kept one moment by it, is kept unto 
salvation. But to render null and void this precious declara- 
tion, Eld. Ditzler says, God only exerts his power to keep us 
through our faith, which faith may in some iiery trial fail and 
perish, and any moment therefore the child of God may perish, 
but Peter teaches otherwise. 

11 '' The trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that 
perisheth, though it be tried with fire, might be found unto praise and 
honor and glory at the appearing of Jesus Christ." — 1 Peter i. 7. 

But that our salvation rests not upon the continuance of our 

love, but upon the love of God in Christ to us. Paul affirms 

— that no created beino; in the Universe, nor anv existing 

influence can cause God to withdraw or Christ to withhold his 

love from us. 

12 " Who shall separate us from tlie love of Christ? shall tribulation, or 
distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword ? As 
it is written. For thy sake we are killed all the day long ; We are accounted 
as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than 
conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither 
death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things 
present, nor things to come, nor height, nor depth, nor any other creatiu-e, 
shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus 
our Lord." — Rom. viii. 35-39. 

This love is unchangeable: as it was /ro???' everlasting 

so it will be to everlasting ever the same ; and while Christ 

loves us, we sh^ll love him. 

Now that each one of us, who have believed on Him 
through his or the words of his Apostles, should be so united 
to Him that the union may be as perfect and indissoluble as 
that which exists between the Eather and the Son, he specifi- 
cally prayed, and him the father heareth always. 

13 "I pray not that thou shouldst take them out of the world, but that 
thou shouldst keep them from the evil. Neither pray I for these alone, 
but for them also who shall believe on me through their word ; that they 
all may be one, as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may 
also be one In us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 
And the glory which thou givest me I have given them ; that they may 
be one even as we are one ; I in them, and thou in me, that they maj 



Final Perseverance. [153 

be made perfect in one. Father, I will that they also whom thou hast 
given me be with me where I am, that they may behold my glory which 
thou hast given me." — John xvii. 16^ SO, 24 

Is not this conclusive that every one the Father hath given 
his Son, will be kept from the evil of this world finally be 
with Christ and behold his glory ? 

This recalls to my mind a stanza of that beautiful hymn 
that Methodists sing and shout over, but do not believe one 
word of it. 

'' But this I do find, we two are so joined 
He'll not live in glory and leave me behind, 
So this is the race, I'm running thro' grace. 
Henceforth till admitted to see my Lord's face." 

And another, which I commend to the attention of my 

opponent— 

" For thy glory we are created to share-^ 
Both the nature and kingdom divine. 
Created again, that our souls may remain 
• In time and eternity thine." 

—[Hymn 260, N. C ; Hymn 412, Northern Coll. 

iSTow while I am really enjoyinir these delightful senti- 
ments and feel anthems rise and swell my heart, I am grieved 
by my oppont^nt's declaration that this assurance is a very 
hurtful anu pernicious doctrine. But not so taught his 
fathei' We&ley. I have met this in Doctrinal Tracts, p. 342. 

^ ^ ^'■Question. May not some of those (who have the testimony, both of 
their justification und'sanctification,) have a testimony from tlie Spirit 
that they shall not finally fall from God ? 

^'- Answer . They may, and this persuasion, that neither life nor death 
separate them from Him, far from being hurtful, may, in some circum- 
stances be extremely useful. These, therefore, we should in no wise 
grieve^ but earnestly encourage them to hold the beginning of tlieir confi- 
dence steadftist unto the end." 

But I must more rapidly file in my proof .texts, so that Eld. 

Ditzler may have an opportunity to answer them if he thinks 

he can. 

18. '' God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that 
ye are able, but wiU with the temptation also make a way to escape, that 
ye mav be able to bear it."— 1 Cor. x. 13. 

"The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose 

I will not, I will not desert to its foes. 

That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake, 

I'll never, no never, no never forsake." 

14. '' That by two immutable things in wliich it was impossible for God 
to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay 
hold upon the hope set before us, which hope we have as an anchor of 
the soul, both sure and steadfast, and which entereth into that within the 
veil."— Heb. vi. 18, 19. 

15. " There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ 
Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit, for the law of the 
spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and 
death." — Rom. viii. 1, 2. 

72 ■ 



\ 



1154 * The Great Carrollton Debate. 

16. " For ye have not received the Spu'it of bondage again to fear ;' but 
ye have received the spmt of adoption, whereby we cry, "Abba, Father " 
(Our Fatlier). The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirits that we 
are the children of God ; and if children then heirs ; heirs of God, and 
joint lieirs with Christ." — Rom. viii. 15-17. 

17. *' That whosoever beheveth in him should not perish, but have ever- 
lasting life."— John iii. 15, 16, 36. 

18. " VerHj^, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, and be- 
lieveth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall never come 
into condemnation ; but is passed from death unto life." — John v. 24. 

19. " This is the bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man ma5^ 
eat thereof and not die. I am the living bread that came down from 
heaven ; if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever. 

" Whoso eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life ; and 
I will raise him up at the last day." — John vi. 37-54 

20. " He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood dwelleth in me, 
and I in him." 

21. "All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that 
cometh to me I will in no wise cast out." 

22. "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which 
seeth the Son and believeth on him may have everlasting hfe ; and I will 
raise him up at the last day." " 

23. "No man can come unto me except the Father who hath sent me 
draw him ; and I will raise him up at the last day " 

24. "For whosoever is born of God overcometh the world." — I John 
V. 4. 

25. "For by one offering he hath perfected forever them that are sancti- 
fied" — i. e-, each one for whom it was once offered. 

A child of God is one who has come to God by this blood, 

one who has been cleansed and sanctified by it. and he must, 

therefore, be saved. 

26. " Because I live, ye shall live also."— John xiv. 19. 

27. " If a man love me he will keep my words, and my Father will 
love him, and we will come unto him and make our abode with him."— 
John xiv. 23. 

Some profess to love, hot fall away and go back to the 

world. Were they Christians ? 

28. " They went out from us, but they were not of us, for if they had 
been of us they would have continued with us, but that they might be 
made manifest 'that they were not all of us."— 1 Johnii. 19. 

The words " no donbt " were inserted by the translator. 

29. "But we are not of those who draw back unto perdition, but of 
them who believe to the saving of the soul."— Heb. x. 39. 

30. " For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and your labor of 
love w-hich ye have showed toward his name, that ye have ministered to 
the saints and do minister." — Heb. vi. 10. 

31. "Born aa'ain of incorruntible seed, which hveth and abideth for- 
ever."-! Peter' i. 23. 

32. " For which of you, intending to build a tower, sitteth not down first 
and counteth the cost, whether he have sufficient to finish it? -Lest, 
haply, after he hath laid the foundation, and is not able to finish it, aU that 
behold it begin to mock, saying, This man began to build, and was not 
able to finish." — Luke xiv. 23 



Final Perseverance. 1155 

33. ^' Being' confideiit of this very thing, that he who hath begun a good 
Work in you will perform it (i. e., perfect, continue to perfect itj until the 
day of Jesus Christ."— Phil. i. 6. 

34. " Behold, I lay in Zion, for a foundation, a stone, a tried stone, a 
precious corner-stone, a sure foundation; he that belie veth shall not 
make haste." 

35. '' Now, therefore, ye are no more strangers (not one of them who is 
a spiritual member — a living stone — ever will be a stranger again, or 
alienated), but feliow-citi:*:ens with the saints, and of the household of 
God, and are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, 
Jesus Christ being the chfef corner-stone, in whom all the building, fitly 
framed together, (every member of this spiritual temple is indissolubly 
framed into Christ), groweth into an holy temple in the Lord, in whom 
ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit." 
— Eph. ii. 19, 20. 

But I must notice the only plausible objection he has ad- 
vanced, and which was put into the mouths of Methodists 
from the day that Wesley was decided to preach and print 
Arminianism rather than election, by the shilling he threw 
tip, coming down " tails rather than heads."* 

It is this, if God acts upon the sinner first, giving him spir- 
itual life and causins: him to desire above all thinars to retain 

~ CD 

it, then man was not left free to choose, and was deprived 
of moral agency, being acted upon in his conviction and con- 
version irresistabh^; and if, after he has been adopted as a 
child, his will has been so changed and influenced that he 
cannot love sin, or desire to sin — unless he can still deserve 
and choose to be lost, and left free to destroy his own soul, 
then he is left without "moral di,o^nity and grandeur, intellec- 
ual force, moral quality or capacity for pleasure"- — in a word 
a "machine" — unaccountable. 

The day is coming in General Cenferences when heads will 
win in this doctrine. 

l!^ow, I have not time to examine these statements, but will 
say this, if it is true of the child of God, it is true of God 
and Christ also, for we cannot conceive it possible for either 
person in the Godhead to be able to sin or even desire to sin, to 
be lost or to desire to be lost, and still thej^ retain their moral 
dignity and grandeur and retain the capacity for happiness, 
and are not mere machines. The child is like the father in 
this respect, it can no more love sin or desire to sin or to be 
lost and is unspeakably happy at the thought of its security. 

■*In a letter from the Rev. Augustus Toplady to Mr Wesley, in 1792, 
we meet with the following, viz: "Why should you of all people 
in the world, be so very angry with the doctrines of grace ? Forget not 
the months and days that are past. Remember that it once depended on 
a toss of a shilling whether you yourself should be a Calvinist or an Armi- 
nian. Tails fell uppermost, and you resolved to be an Arminian." 
Heads will one day fall uppermost. Arminian Inconsistencies and Er- 
ror% by Henry Brown, p. 418„ 



1156 The Great Carrollton Debate, 

If the Elder feels particularly bellicose, I want liim as usual 
to take turn at his own Discipline, and Wesley and Watson 
and when he demolishes them, I will prove to him that liberty 
may exist with impeccability, and moral accountability vvith 
God's sovereignty. 

I will read to him Art. YIII. of his Discipline : 

"The condition of man after the fall of Adam is such, that he cannot 
turn and prepare himself, by his own natural strength and works, to faith, 
and calhng upon God ; w^herefore we have no power to do good works, 
pleasant and acceptable to God, without the grace of God by Christ pre- 
venting us, that we may have a good will^ and working with us, when we 
have that good will," 

Now this teaches that the grace of God, must prevent, i. e., 
go before any act of our own, giving us the will to call upon 
God, and the powder to exercise faith, etc. The dead sinner is 
quickened, made alive without consulting his choice or will, 
and a good, will produced within him ; and without this "pre- 
venient grace" no man can do a good work, and w^hile it is 
given he will do the will of God. This is the good work be- 
gun by God, and if so, will be carried on unto the day of the 
Lord Jesus. Art X. is also sound, since it states that the 
faith and good works, are the fruits of justification, follow 
after it, and do iiot produce it and consequently do not pre- 
serve and continue it. Here then is Eld. Ditzler's irresistible 
grace that destroys man's accountability in his own Discipline, 
What will he do with it ? Repudiate the Discipline as he has 
done in other propositions ? 

N^ow what did Mr. Wesley believe — "It may be allowed 
God acts as sovereign in convincing some souls of sin, arrest- 
ing them in their mad career by resistless power. It seems, also, 
that at the moment of our conversion, he acts irresistibly." 
I only differ from Wesley in believing that God so acts in 
every case. Again, "I do not deny that in some souls the 
grace of God is so far irresistible that they cai^not but believe 



AND BE finally SAVED." 



Will Eld. Ditzler assail his father Wesley ? What will he 
say about this? 

But more. In his comments on Rom. viii., Wesley asks, 
*'What is it then we learn from the whole account? It is this, 
and nothing more : 1. God knows all believers. 2. Wills 
that they should be saved from sin. 3. To this end justifies 
them. 4. Sanctifies them ; and, 5. Takes them to glory." 

What is this but afiirming the salvation of every child of 
God ? 

Again. (The question is, if one once justified is not saved.) 
"To him that is justified, or forgiven, God will not impute 
SIN TO HIS CONDEMNATION, He will not coudemu him on that 



Final Perseverance, 1157 

account, either in this world or in that which is to come "" * 
And from the time we are accepted through the beloved, rec- 
onciled to God through his blood, he loves and blesses, and 
watches over us tor good as if we had never sinned." — Sermon 
on Justification. 

Again : "With regard to final preservation, I am inclined 
to believe there is a state attainable in this life from which a 
man cannot finally fall ; and that he has attained it who can 
say, 'Old things are passed away; all things are become 
new.' " Works, Vol. in. 289. 

]N'ow, every child of God can say this trulj^, therefore every 

child of God has attained a state from which he cannot fall. 

Ill the Doctrinal Tracts, page 163, the General Conference says, "That 
assurance of faith which these enjoy, (who have the witness of the Spirit, ) 
excludes all doubt and fear concerning their future perseverance ; though 
it is not properly an assurance of what is future, but only what now is." 
*' It excludes all kind of doubt and fear concerning their final jpersever- 
ance!" 

How remarkably this accords with the Scriptures: "I will 
make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn 
away from them to do them good, but I will put my fear in 
their hearts, that they shall not depart from rne." Jer, xxii. 24. 

But a little from E. Watson on Eld. Ditzler's assertion that 
unless a being was free to sin and could sin to his own des- 
truction he is not a moral being but a machine. 

" Let us hear Mr. Watson. '■'■ Imperfection must in comparison of God 
and the creature's own capacity of improvement, remain the character 
of a finite being ; but it is not so clear that this imperfection must at all 
times, and through the whole course of existence imply liability to sin. 
God is free, and yet he cannot be tempted of evil. '' It is impossible for 
him to lie, not for want of natural freedom, but because of an absolute 
moral perfection- Liberty and impeccability imply therefore no contra- 
diction." 

" Let us hear the Apostle Paul. " For if when we were enemies we 
were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more being recon- 
ciled, we shall be saved by his life." — Rom. v. 10. 

Now if there is no interference with moral liberty in reconciling ene- 
mies to God, does it follow that the grace which keeps them in a state of 
reconciliation, is so much greater than that which reconciled them, that 
*' a man after conversion is no longer a free agent ?" 

So thought not Paul. The Arminian, therefore, must give up his 
Wesley, his Watson, the Apostle Paul, etc., or give up his objection. His 
great error is, in supposing that one who loves God supremely, (as every 
Christian must,) may desire to fall from that state of love ; and that un- 
less he is permitted to do so, he will be deprived of his liberty. Whereas, 
such an alienation of heart implies the absence of all love. Although then, 
such a man may, in the exercise of free agency, fall into sin, he cannot 
fall from grace." 

This says Dr. Brown is perhaps the most artful objection ever brought 
against the doctrine, as it leads directly to an inquiry concerning the 
mode of the divine operation on the human heart — a subject on which, 
while in this world we must remain profoundly ignorant. But where 
reason fails, revelation shines with peculiar brightness. " Now unto him 



1 158 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before 
the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, to the only wise God our 
Saviour, be glory and majesty and dominion and power." Jude 24, 

" Here it is expressly declared, that the Lord "is able to keep his people 
from falhng, and to present them faultless before the presence of his 
glory." To those therefore who urge the above objection, we reply, "ye 
jdo err, not knowing the Scriptures, neither the power of God." — Armin- 
ian, pp. 334-335. 

The Good Shepherd declares that not only does he hold 

each sheep ill his Own Almighty hands, but that the Father 

who gave him the sheep to keep is so interested in both the 

honor of the Shepherd and the safety of the sheep that he 

throws his Own Almighty hands over those of the Shepherd 

so that the power of both, the Father and Son, would have to 

be overcome before the weakest sheep could be lost. 

36. " My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me." 
— John X. 27. 

37. "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, 
neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand." — John x. 28. 

38. " My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man 
is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." — John x. 29. 

There is another passage, similar to this — 

39. "For ye are dead, and your life is hid with. Christ in God." — 
Ool. iii. 3. 

" Ye '' — the Christians at Collossee, so every Christian every- 
where — ''are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." 

Wq have instanced a miner, who, discovering an immense 
diamond, first hid it in a small safe, closely locked, and then 
hid the small safe in a large burglar-proof safe, so that the 
thief would be compelled to destroy both safes before he 
could reach the gem, — so in this case; the Christian, first 
being hid in Christ, and then with Christ in God, both God 
and Christ would have to be destroved to 2ret one Christian; 
and if one, then Satan could take all, there being notliing left 
to hinder him; and so the poet correctly sings: — 

"Not as the world the Savior gives ; 

He's an unchanging friend ; 
Whom once he loves, he never leaves, 

But loves him to the end. 

Else Satan migh- full victory boast; 

The Church might wholly fall ; 
If one believer may he lostj 

2hen, mxrely, so may all.'''' 

But the safety of each one that ever was, for one moraent, hid 
with Christ in God, is assured in the next verse: — 

41. "When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall 
we also app' ar with him in glory." (Col. iii. 4.) Yes; we 
shall aj^pear, every one that ever was known by Christ as a 



Final Perseverance. 1^59 

" sheep," or a " saint," or a " child "for one moment, from Abel 
down, when he appears the second time in his glorj, with ten 
thousands of angels, who will appear with him; for it is 
expressly said, that at his second coming he will bring all his 
saints with liim (Zee. xiv. 5, 1 Thes. iii. Id) ; and then will it be 
manifested to the universe, that of all the Father gave him, 
he had lost not one. 

Now, I wish 3^ou all to notice how Eld. Ditzler meets, these 
fortv-one passages, that assert the faithfulness of Christ in his 
office as the shepherd, and then you may decide whether his 
first speech made useless my prepared argument, which 
includes also his office as Kinsman, Redeemer; as Surety to 
the Father for the salvation of each one that ever believed; 
and as the Atoning Priest of the everlasting covenant. 

If I thought my Methodist friends felt like singing, I would 
propose to close by singing one of their own songs, but as 
they do not, I wdll read it : — 

" We clap our hands exulting, 

In thiiie Almighty favour ; 
The love divine that made us thine, 

Can keep us thine for ever. 

"Thou dost conduct thy people, 

Through torrents of temptation ; 
Nor will we fear, when thou art near. 

The fire of tribulation. 

' ' The world with sin and Satan, 

In vain our march opposes ; 
By thee we shall break through them all, 

And sing the song of Moses." — Hymn 275. 



ii6o The Great Carrollton Debate. 



DR. DITZLER'S THIRD SPEECH. 



Gentlemen Moderators : — As a mariner rejoices at the 
sight of land when for days he has been on the deep, so my 
good friend and I now rejoice at sight of land, of rest to our 
wear}^ frames and lungs, and I shall glide into port a little 
ahead. 

The Doctor is right in the application of Dr. Summer's 
words, that a thousand hypotheses do not affect a clearly de- 
clared doctrine. And have I been trying so long and hard to 
convince Dr. Graves of it, and never succeeded till this good 
hour ? Hence the pains with which we labored to show 
him. 1, That in the very nature of things he cannot estab- 
lish the negative, or refute the affirmative of this proposition. 
There is no way of doing it. Even if we never found where 
one did perish who was regenerated, it is no proof no such case 
occurred. If no such case occurs in past histor}-, it is no 
absolute proof it may not occur, though we admit its moral 
force would be great. But neither of these can be done. Not 
only so, but the processes of reasoning of the Doctor are based 
on assumptioi]s utterly antagonistic to all the Bible, subvert- 
ing the foundations of all our accountability to God. 

" But the point is, will a child of God do it ?" that is 
fall, etc. !N"o, no, "is it possible?'' is the point. That is the 
question. 

Paul tells us certain parties "are fallen from grace," Gal. v. 
4. Christ tells us we can.not bear fruit except we abide in him," 
John XV. 

The Doctor tells us, commenting on Paul's strong language, 
if we lose it, — this religion, then " we cannot be renewed," 
are lost. That exactly establishes my proposition then. 

He quotes Paul as if when a man was converted, the whole 
salvation was "perfected," whereas Paul urges that a system 
giving " completeness" as the word means, to Christian char- 
acter, and perfectly adapted to our condition is now completed. 
It has no bearing whatever on our Proposition. Wesley's 
inclination to believe there was a state of grace so exalted as 
that we, in its enjo3^ment, may be said to be made perfect, 
affects not our Proposition in the least. 

He ureses that a husband married cannot be divorced. So 
we are married to Christ. But, 1st. In the Bible divorces are 



Final Perseverance. ii6t 

named as early as the Prophets Isaiah and Amos, as well as in 
Moses. 2. In the New Testament divorces are named as 
well-known matters. 3. We know they exist now — are as 
plentiful as blackberries in some States — cheap. 

But we are sealed. But seals may be broken. Figures are 
not to '*"go on all foure." All these expressions are used to 
convey a specific, proper idea. But never was it desi,2:ned 
that great doctrinal ideas should be founded on the mere acci- 
dents of metaphorical language. It would destroy all biblical 
exegesis at once. If you wish to establisli a doctrine, you 
must find where it is pointedly set forth — where the mind of 
the writer was clearly on that subject, hence meant it in that way. 
That at least is altogether necessary as a starting point in all 
the doctrines of religion. It is wholly unallowable to catch 
up the merest possible deduction, or accidental force of an 
illustration in Scripture, where the context clearly shows that 
the deduction or applicatioii you make of it was not at all in 
his mind — not under discussion. The word " sealed " does not 
imply that a man cannot lose God's spiritual influence upon 
him; for that is what he calls sealing him. He expressly tells 
us those who 'have received the Spirit — wdiich is the sealing, 
"have fallen away," and it is impossible to renew them unto 
repentance even. Ileb. vi. 2-4. 

Those who went out from us because not of us, have noth- 
ing to do with those who went out, became " entangled," 
"overcome," "shipwrecked." They are the ones we are 
talking about. In one passage it is said — "If any man say I 
love God and keep not his commandments, he is a liar," etc. 
It has been proposed to render this: If any man say I have 
loved God, and keep not his commandments, he is a liar," etc. 

1. It is a false rendering. It is perfect tense in Greek, 
always without any exception, embracing tiie present, though 
running into the past. Thus if I was married and my wdfe 
had been dead only ten minutes, I cannot use the perfect 
tense. The relation must continue. I have been, I continue, 
I am married, is the force of the Greek perfect. Hence 
egnoka is present. I have known still continue to know, I do 
know God, and keep not, etc. That is its force. 

2. It would be strange if John were to say no one who had 
known God had ever violated His commandments, especially 
in the face of Paul's and Peter's teachings and all men's ex- 
perience. 

The Doctor holds that Peter was an Arminian, but in his 
trial he lost it all, and became a good Calvinist. JSTow it was 
just the reverse. He was a fine Calvinist — avowed though 



ii62 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

everybody grew weak-kneed and fled, he would stand. .He 
had seen Christ do such wonderful things, he thought he was 
in that safe. But when Satan made a pass or two at hira, it 
took all of those notions out of his head, and late in life he 
wrote that strong testimony we quoted from the second chap- 
ter of his second epistle. 

And he had been such a Calvinist that he would not go to 
Gentiles, but was perfectly satisfied God was a respecter of 
persons. But when God let down the sheet in a vision, Peter 
learned at last that God was no respecter of persons. Acts x. 

He drew a strong picture of Job's sufferings when attacked 
so fiercely by Satan. Yet he tells us he could not be over- 
come. But he failed to tell us why Job did not fixll. " In all 
this Job sinned not." There was his security. He remained 
faithful. It shows us the force of that truth — He will give us 
fi^race. We must use it. But while Job sinned not, did not 
Adam sin? Did not David, Saul, Solomon, Peter sin? Job 
did not, but they did. 

We must now review some of the texts and points we made 
in our two speeches, and submit the question to you. We 
started by saying of this proposition, 

1. It is largely redundant in debate, since practically all 
preach and profess to act as if we could fall and be lost. 

2. It should, therefore, be a non-essential, and left to lib- 
erty of conscience. 

3. We are safe on it, for 1. If you should be found to have 
proofs enough to establish your side, we are safe, and have 
to be admitted as following Apostolic precedents in warning 
against the evil, and of the danger of it. 

2. If we are right, you are in a fearfully dangerous position. 
'6. It is impossible for him to refute the proposition, even 
if he could prove that no one had ever fallen. 

4. Was there ever a document, code, or law, put forth by 
responsible men, moralists, legislators, warning against immi- 
nent dangers, full of warnings where no danger existed ? 

.V'ith these general remarks we proceed to sustain our 
affirmative. 

I. By the History of Facts. 

1. The angels (2 Pet. ii, 4; Jude 6) fell and were lost. 

2. Adam and Eve fell. 

3. David fell, but recovered. Solomon fell, and we are left 
in uncertainty as to his fate. Peter fell and recovered. Judas 
fell and " went to his own place."' He communed, and was 
therefore a " baptized believer," if Dr. Graves' theory be cor- 
rect — a slender thing to hold to, by the way. All these are 



Final Perseverance. 1163 

cases where the parties did fall into fearful crimes — sins. 
Others could be added — Hymenius and Alexander whom 
Paul names expressly, and Saul, the Kinji:. 

[N^ow of such men as David, Peter, etc., suppose they had 
died while in this condition, what becomes of them. They 
would perish, you say. The only question then is — can a re- 
generate man die w^hen he is guilty of such a fall as David ? 
Look at it calmly. A man is regenetated — pardoned. Now 
you are bound to admit that he can, and many do, commit 
alarming, yea, damning sins after being regenerated. If 

they can commit one, they can commit two five — ten — 

scores of sins. ISTow he becomes fearfully guilty. In that 
fix, he is better qualified to sin then ever. Can he die in that 
fix? If not, he can just sin on, and live on. You see this 
doctrine will not do, and its absurdity is manifest, from this 
stand-point. 

Before we review some of our proof texts, let us look 
again at the objections Dr. Graves and others rely on to off- 
set these facts. 

It is urged that the possibility of final apostasy implies 
imperfection .in Deity, failure to accomplish what is under- 
taken. But we answer, 

1. He has not undertaken to save men unconditionally, but 
on their " overcoming," " being faithful until death," '^ endur- 
ing unto the end," " so running as to obtain." 

2. It proves too much, if that much. 

(1). The angels were made to be happy, yet some fell, and 
defeated the end of their creation. 

(2). Adam, made to be happy, fell. 

(3). Conversion, grace, etc., exist that we sin not, but love and 
serve God, etc., yet Peter, David, fell, and many godly people 
fell into sin. God engaged and covenanted to provide against 
these evils, works ways for escape, but never engaged beyond 
aid, grace, help, succor, ways to escape for us, we to use 
them as sinners are to use their opportunities, etc. 

(4). God is opposed to all sin, yet'^sin exists. 

(5). He desires, and provides for, the salvation of all men, 
yet men are lost. It is not for the glory of God or the inter- 
ests of earth that men be unconditionally regenerated or saved. 

II. A change in Deity. This is weak indeed. 

Is it a greater or more of the nature of a change for God to 
hate in Bible style, the wicked, and love the same person 
when a child, born of God, etc. . than loving him as a child, he 
rebels, Satan enters, " led captive at his will," and he blas- 
phemes, and" is delivered over to Satan," and Deity now hates 
him — i. e.. his ways. 

♦ 



1 164 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

We see that this is the old story over again, of simply rel}'- 
mg on special pleading, with no foundation, no theological 
])rinciple to rest on. We are free to state that had he, 1, taken 
the genuine, old-fashioned Calvinistic ground, 2, could he have 
2")roved it to be true in its restrictive points — making man 
wholly passive, destroying all freedom, so that man can only 
act under a propelling force, and be wholly passive in all mat- 
ters, he would have a solid foundation ; and the contest would 
be wholly on whether that were so or not. But he is far re- 
moved from that stand-poii^t of theology. We appeal to, rely 
on the plain Bible, and his position fails as tried by this test, 
^ow take the texts before quoted — Ezk. xviii. 22, 24; and the 
folio wins; : 

"And I will make the rivers dry, and sell the land mto the hand of the 
wicked : and I will make the land waste, and all that is therein, by the 
hand of strangers : I the Lord have spoken it. Thus saith the Lord God ; 
I will also destroy the idols, and I will cause their images to cease out of 
Noph ; and there shall be no more a prince of the land of Egj^Dt : and I 
will put a fear in the land of Egypt. At Tehaphnehes also the day shall 
be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt : and the pomp 
of her strength shall cease in her : as for her, a cloud shall cover her, and 
her daughters shall go into captivity." Ezek. xxx. 12, 13-18. 

This shows that the righteousness spoken of is that which 
God required that they might live, as opposed to 'wicked- 
ness," " iniquity." Again — 

"For it is impossible for those who were once enMghtened, and have 
tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, 
And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to 
come, '' And have f alien' [kai pareiDesontas) 'away" — the Aorist tense — 
'to renew them,' etc. For the earth which drinketh in the rain that 
Cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them by whom it 
is dressed, receiveth blessing from God: But that which beareth thorns 
and briers is rejected, and is nigh unto cursing ; whose end is to be burned " 
Heb. vi. 4-8. 

]N'ow notice here, they were once enlightened, have tasted 
of the heavenl}' gift, were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, 
had tasted the good word of God, yea, and of the powers of 
the world to come — what exalted enjoyments and maturit}' of 
grace, ''and have fallen away, to renew them unto repentance" 
— the starting point of reformation. The reasons he gives, 
verse 6. He explains it in verses 7 and 8 — that is the earth 
that receives so many bounties, rain, sunshine, is nigh unto 
cursing, rejected, so will be such persons as receive such 
boundless blessings from God as Paul describes, yet continue 
not therein. 

There is ]io "if" in the Greek. Kor does the term in the 
connection tolerate it; and no scholar has ever dared justify 
Beza for putting in " si " if, in the text in Latin. 

We could requote a host of texts, but they are all in our 
first speech, and it is needless to repeat them. — \_Timeout. 



Final Perseverance. 1165 



DR. GRAVES' THIRD CLOSING REPLY. 



Mr. President: — From the brief sample I gave you of my 
MSS. whicli I have laid by, you can judge, and the readers of 
the debate will judge whether my opponent's speech just de- 
livered made them useless and null. The one fact developed, 
that Christ in the Covenant of Redemption became surety to 
the Father— for all given him by the Father — for every one 
who should at any time believe on him and be known and 
received by ' ai as a sheep, forever settles this question — and 
that feature Eld. Ditzler will never successfully assail. To 
boast is the peculiar weakness of the Elder, and he must b© 
indulged in it. 

But I will express my gratification at the readiness with 
which Elder Ditzler accepted my proposition to meet at a 
convenient future day, in the city of jS"ashville, and discuss 
for days this one proposition with a view to publication. I 
will notify him within eighteen or twenty-four months from 
this day, so that the publication may not interfere with this. 
Therefore, let no one regard this as a discussion but a discursion 
affording little more than a glance at the ground to be ex- 
amined, and the Scriptures that seem to sustain the affirma- 
tive. Time of course, will not permit rae to notice but a few 
of the many passages he may claim as favoring him, and I 
would prefer that he would indicate five or six of these he 
regards as the strongest, and I will devote my time to them. 
Will you do so ? He declines. I will then glance at as many 
as I can that he seems to emphasize. 

1. The holy angels fell, and are hopelessly lost. 

I reply the case is not parallel and does not apply: the 
angels did not stand in the Covenant of Redemption. They 
were under law, and not grace, and they stood in their own 
strength, had no surety. The Apostle refers to their case not 
to warn Christians against Apostacy, but as proof that God 
will punish the false teachers of his day, and it should be a 
warning to all false teachers to-day who are teaching for doc- 
trines, human traditions and the commandments of men. 

2. Adam and Eve lived under a Covenant of works, and not 
that of Redemption or Grace and in their own strength without 
a sarety. 

This case is alluded to by the Apostle to teachers of the 



II 66 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

subtlet}^ of the Devil in alluring to sin, that we may be 
warned of his devices. A child of God may be tempted to 
sin, to his own sorrow, as the children of our love are often 
influenced to do those thinsis that offend us,butthev are never- 
theless our children, and love us devotedly and supremely. 
Neither of these two examples have any bearing upon this 
question. 

3. In my opponent's first speech, he said he would omit the 
examples of 8aal and Solomon, but in his next he especially 
passes them in proof, and I may as well glance at them. 
There is no evidence that Saul was ever a Christian, but the 
contrary, and is in liis relations to David used as a type of 
Satan, the opposer, the persecuter and attempted murderer 
of God's anointed. "We are not warranted to infer that be- 
cause it is recorded of him at one time that God s^ave him 
another heart, and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him, so 
that he prophesied that therefore he was regenerated and be- 
came a child of God, and when afterwards it is said the spirit 
of the Lord departed from him, that he then fell from grace. 

So far from it his life- from the day he was crowned King 
of Israel to the day the spirit of the Lord left him is proof 
that he was a Godless man. He was King for more than two 
years before " he built an altar unto the Lord." Comp. 1, 
Saml. xiii, with i. Saml. xiv, -35. 

Nearly ever}^ recorded religious act of his life savors far 
more "of rash impiety than of piety. The spirit of the Lord 
came upon Balaam and he prophesied truly of Christ and of 
Israel, yet he was a Godless man, and desired to curse God's 
people, to obtain the gold and honors of Balak. And Caia- 
phas the high priest was inspired to prophesy truly concern- 
ing Christ and yet he was a wicked man. There is no satis- 
factory evidence that Saul was ever a regenerate man, and 
his cas^'is inapplicable. 

4. That Solomon was truly pure in the early part of hislife is 
admitted b}- all, and he was a distinguished type of Christ as 
was David his father, but that he fell into grevous sin, is also 
admitted— but that he died iniDenitent and was fin all v lost is 
claimed by Eld. Ditzler and Arminians, though they fail to 
prove that he died impenitent. That God had a purpose in 
permitting Solomon to seek and to search out all things that 
are done under heaven, ^' to prove mirth, and to enjoy pleas- 
ure," and to " take hold on folly," that he might, for the good 
of all who should follow him, declare that they were all vanity 
and vexation of spirit, as God allowed Job to be afilicted and 
to sin by speaking rashly and impiously for the sake of those 
who should read his history. That the book of Ecclesiastes 



Final Perseverance. 1167 

is one of confession and evidence of repentance, is freely 
conceded by commentators generally; so Solomon's case, 
proves nothing in favor of final Apostacy. At the close of 
his life he wrote three books of the Bible w^hich is full proof 
that he was a holv man, 2 Pet. 1-4. 

5. The declaration of Ezek. xviii. 24 and 33; xii. 13, in- 
stanced by Eld. Ditzler, does not prove the possibility of the 
Apostacy and fl-'al rnin of an ad(^pted child of God, though 
so persistently urged by the advocates of Apostacy. Tliere 
are two thino-s taken for granted bv them all from Mr. Wes- 
ley, down to the disputant of this day, viz. 1. Tliat the person 
denominated "■righteous'' in these passages, denotes a truly re- 
generate character. 2. That the death here spoken of is the 
second death. That neither supposition is true, is evident 
from the fact that if so, no man who ever lived on earth ever 
was saved. Koah, nor Abraham, nor Job, nor Moses, nor 
David, for each and all did sin, and if in their sin they died 
eternally they, and all the patriarchs and prophets and apos- 
tles are in hell to-day. Why, sir, according to Eld. Ditzler's 
construction, no Christian, should he sin, could find any place 
for repentance, he must die in his sins, and be lost! Wesley 
and no Methodist then was ever saved. 

That the term "righteous" is used with respect to innocence 
of the violation of the civil law, I refer all to Deut. xxv. 1; 
1 Kings viii. 31, 32 ; 1 Kings ii. 32, and x. 9. These characters 
were called " righteous," but thej^ were not therefore regen- 
erate persons. The death referred to is not eternal death, but 
temporal, and the ofience is evidently the violation of the civil 
law, as enacted by Moses. Dent. xvi. 19. 

" Thou shalt not wrest judgment ; thou shaltnot respect persons, neither 
take a gift ; for a gift doth Wind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words 
of the righteous." 

Deut. xxiv. 16. 

'' The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall 
the children be put to death for the fathers ; every man shall be put to 
death for his own sin." 

Respecting the operation of this law Amaziah furnished a 

practical illustration, thus — 

"And it came to pass, as soon as the kingdom was confirmed in his 
hand, that he slew his servants which had slain the king liis father. But 
the children of the murderers he slew not : according unto that which is 
written in the book of the law of Moses, wherein the Lord commanded, 
saying, The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, nor the chil- 
dren be put to death for the fathers ; but every man shall be put to death 
for his own sin." — 2 Kings xiv 5, 6. 

With the proper definition of the terms and the law of 
Moses before us w^ are prepared to redeem this passage from 
the perversions of Arminians, 



ti68 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

'' The Jews, like other nations punished some sins with death, and then* 
civil officers were required to mfiict that penalty on the offender, irrespec- 
tive of his standing in society. Accordingly we have the instructions to 
that effect given in Deuteronomy^, repeated in Ezekiel : ' The soul that 
sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, 
neither shall the father bear the iniquit^y of the son. The righteousness 
of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked 
shall be upon him.' ' When the righteous turneth from his righteousness, 
and committeth iniquity, and doeth according to all the abominations 
that the wicked man doeth, shall he live? All his righteousness that he 
hath done, shall not be mentioned;' (as a bar between him and justice,) 
' in his tres]3ass that he hath trespassed, and in his sin that he hath sinned, 
in them shall he die."— Ezek. xviii 20, 24. 

Here mj' opponent leaves the Old Testament. It does not 
afford him a passage nor an example to support bis theory — he 
has of course brought forth all the strongest. ]N"o\v I will read 
you a few unequivocal positive passages from one chapter in 
the Old Testament before I leave it, to let vou see what it 
does teach on this s abject. 

"For the arms of the wicked shall be broken : but the Lord upholdeth 
the righteous. The Lord knov»'eth the days of the upright : and their in- 
heritance shall be forever. The steps of a good man are ordered by the 
Lord : and he delighteth in his w^ay. Though he fall, he shall not be ut- 
terly cast down : for the Lord upholdeth him with his hand. For the 
Lord loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints ; t\iQy are preserved 
for ever ; but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off! The law of his God 
is in his heart ; none of his steps shall slide. The wicked watcheth the 
righteous, and seeketh to slay him. The Lord will not leave him in his 
hand, nor condemn him when he is judged. Mark the perfect man, and 
behold the upright : for the end of that man is peace." 

The child of God is constantly held by the right hand of the 
Almighty, who has promised never to fors^ike him, and though 
he fall seven times he will rise again. But if Eld. Ditzler's 
doctrine be true, no saint ever was or ever will be saved^ be- 
cause if these falls mean the loss of the grace of i-egeneration, 
there is no recoverv from them, for this is the Word of God 
touching each fall from a state of grace and regeneration. It 
is impossible to renew them to repentance." "Tliere remain- 
eth no more sacrifice for sin." There never was, there never ivill 
be a case of apostasy from, grace, where the sovl was ever, or ever irill 
be recovered. 

6. The first examples and passages he quotes from the New 
Testament are 1 Tim. i, 18-20, and 2 Tim. 16, 17^Hymeneus, 
Alexander and Philetus. He claims, without proving, 1. That 
these were once truly regenerated persons. 2. That the faith 
of which they had made ' shipwreck, was the saving faith, 
"begun by grace;" and 3. That their being delivered unto 
Satan, was consigning their souls to endless perdition. Before 
these passages and examples help him in the least, he must 
prove these three things, which he cannot do. 

First, if thev were indeed reerenerated and God had thus 



FINAL Perseverance. 1169 

begun a good work in their hearts, He certainly left them not 

to perish. 

"Being confident of this very thing, that he which hath begun a goo(J 
work in you will perform it until the day of Jesus Christ." — Phil, i, 6. 

And then you sing from your hymn book — 



And this 



"Thy saints in all this glorious war 
^all conquer tho' they die." 

"His glory shall bring up the rear, 
And perfect what his grace begun.'''' 



If they were once Christiana and finally lost, both the Word 
of God and your Plymn Book teach falsely. 

But, 2. They may have been Christians and fallen into er- 
roneous doctrine, for which Paul excluded them, and exclu- 
sion and possibly the infliction of bodily ills, have been all 
Paul meant by delivering them to Satan. (See 1 Cor. v, 5) and 
yet tbis incestuous man was subsequently restored to the 
fellowship of the church. See 2 Cor. ii, 6. 

3. These men might have been false professcn^s, who, as 

sucb are in our day wont to, assumed leadership in the 

church, whom Paul had put away. Upon which supposition 

the digclaration of 1 John, ii, 19, covers their cases and all 

other apparent apostates, for they being false teachers, were 

of An ti- Christ. • 

"They went out from us, but they were not of us ; for if they had been 
of us, they would no doubt have continued with us : but they went out, 
that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us." — 1 John, 
ii, 19. 

Aiid tbis language of Peter sufficiently explains the many 

ap|)^ent apostasies to be only a fallirjg for the want of grace, 

faffing from a mere profession of grace enjoyed. 

"But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog 
is turned to his own vomit again ; and, the sow that was washed, to her 
wallowing in the mire." — 2 Peter, ii, 22. 

If one of those apostate characters should claim that they 

were once in a state of regeneration, though now a child of 

Satan, John meets them with this assertion — ''He that says 

— egnokaaiiton — I have known him and keepeth not — [yeroon, 

is not keeping] — his commandments, is a liar and the truth is not 

in him." The idea is thi't a Christian may be temporarily 

overcome of temptation, of whicb he Avill repent with godly 

sorrow so soon as he discovers hi.^" error, but to live and take 

pleasure in known sin for weeks and months is an impossible 

supposition. Paul settles this question beyond cavil by asking 

a question that men nor angels can answer — "How shall we, 

who are dead to sin, live any longer therein ?" — Pom. vi, 2. 

We can as well suppose the dead to rise from their graves and 

73 



1 1 70 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

enjoy the pleasures of this world as was their wont, as to sup- 
pose that a true Christian can take pleasure in known sin. 

7. Elder Ditzler brings forward the two "sugar sticks'' of 
all Arminians. Heb. vi, 3, 6,8; and Heb. xi, 26-29 — the 
last but a repetition of the fii-st. [N'ow in neither of these pas- 
sages is it said that any Christian had actually fallen, or that 
they would, but there is a statement made ot what would fol- 
low, result, supposing a child of God should really ^^ fall from'' 
the grace of adoption and return back to a state of unr^- 
generacy— a result, mark you, Eld. Ditzler nor his Society, nor 
any Arminian, loill accept, i. e,, that such an one is irretrievably 
lost; can never be renewed to repentance, or saved. ]^ow I insist 
that Eld. Ditzler shall accept all the teachings of this passage, 
that if a Christian should fall, it don't say that one may or ever 
did fall, he can never be recovered. It plainly says this, but 
Eld. Ditzler flatly contradicts it, and teaches that Christians 
have fallen, and may fall, and yet be renewed to repentance 
and saved ! But if it is true that a soul, recovered in the 
image of Jesus, can so fall as to lose that image, then it is 
true that that image can never be renewed or that soul ever 
saved. And this doctrine is the bane of Arminianism. 

But these passages, as they stand in our version or the ac- 
cepted Greek text, do not prove that it is Q\t\\Qv possible or 
'probable that an adopted child of God can so apostatize as to 
be forever lost. 

I am tempted to quote his Syriac upon him, a version he 
places on an equality with the Greek text, if not far above it. 
'Thus it stands: 

^'For it is impossible that they who have been baptized, and 
who have tasted the gift which is from heaven and have re- 
ceived the Spirit of Holiness, and have tasted the good word 
of God and the power of the coming age, should sin so that 
they should be renewed again to repentance and again cruelty 
the Son of God and put him to ignominy." This rendering 
is approved by Barnes, who refers to it to show that the Syri- 
an Christians were orthodox on the question of the Saints' 
Preservation. But take our version; though there is no "if" 
expressed, the supposition is clearly expressed in the partici- 
ple : "Having fallen away," and it is nothing but a supposito- 
ry case. And will an intelligent Christian claim that a 
supposition really teaches the possibility of the thing sup- 
posed. ? 

Let us try a few cases : 

John viii, 55 — Christ, speaking of his Father says, "If I 
should say I know him not." Does this mean that it was 



Final Perseverance. 1171 

possible or probable that Christ might say this and become a 
liar? 

John xxi, 22 — "If I will that he [John] tarry till I come, 
what is that to thee ?" The Apostles fell into this error until 
corrected — that it might be not only possible but very proba- 
ble that John would never die. But Christ did not say it or 
intimate it any more than Paul intimated in these passages 
that a child of God would trample the blood wherewith he was 
sanctified under his feet as an unholy thing. Such an act is 
from its very nature morally impossible. 

Gal. i, 8 — "But though, [i. e. if,] we, or an angel from heav- 
en, preach an}^ other gospel unto you than that which we have 
preached unto you, let him be accursed." 

Here the Apostle clearly supposes an impossible case, in 
order to assert in the strongest manner possible that the doc- 
trine he had preached was true. And so by the passages under 
review, Paul was teaching by the epistle the infinite superior- 
ity of the priesthood and sacrifice and blood of Christ over 
the Jewish sacrifices. They could and needed to be offered 
repeatedly and then did not put away sin or make the conaer 
unto God perfect, but the blood of Christ, once offered, /ore?;er 
perfected them that are sanctified by it, and therefore it needed 
not to be offered again, and owing to its perfect and completed 
work, there was no provision made for a second offering, and 
hence the conclusion to which the Apostles lead their minds, 
if the efficacy of the blood and sacrifice could be lost, there 
could be no fresh application of it and the subject would, in 
that case, inevitably be lost. But lest the Jewish Christians 
to whom he wrote might conclude that it was possible to lose 
the efficacy of this sacrifice, and so fall from grace, the Apos- 
tle says : 

"But, beloved, we are persuaded better things of you, and things that 
accompany salvation, though we thus speak. For Grod is not unrighteous 
to forget your work and labor of love, which ye have shewed toward his 
name, in that ve have ministered to the saints, and do minister." — Heb. 
vi. 9, 10. 

8, His eighth amounts to nothing in the semblance of proof 
to sustain the Elder's position, for it means nothing more than 
the conversion of a sinner who bears the name of brother, for 
if he was living in sin and his soul was in a state of death, he 
was an unregenerate man, for all true Christians are said to 
have "passed from death unto life, and can never more come 
into condemnation" — John v. 24— or be again exposed to the 
penalty of violated law, because they have been "freed from 
sin," and the dominion of the law, and adopted as the sons 
and daughters of the Most High. 



1 172 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

"And if children, then heirs ; heirs of God, and joint heirs with Christ." 
— Rom. viii. 17. 

• 9. But Eld. Ditzler claims that Judas was an adopted child 
of God, and thus convicts Christ of slandering him. It was 
in the early part of his ministry that Christ indicated the true 
character of Judas. "Have not I chosen you twelve, and one 
of 3'ou is a devil?" John vi. 70. And John well knew his 
character. 

"This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, 
and had the bag, and bare what was put therein." — John xii. 6. 

I find it nowhere indicated that Judas' nauie was written 
in heaven — that was said of the seventy disciples, among whom 
was no Judas. Eld. Ditzler again claims that Judas was 
permitted by Christ to partake of the Lord's Supper and 
quotes John xiii. 27. It is by this passage in John in which 
we are circumstantially told at what supper Judas was; and 
when he left that we must interpret the indefinite passages 
of the otlier evangelists who do not state the occurrences in 
chronological order. John says it was the Passover Supper and 
not the Lord's Supper that followed which Judas ate with 
Christ. "The Supper" was only eaten in connection with the 
Passover Supper, and it was when Christ gave the sop to 
Judas, that he went out immediately to consummate his plans 
for betravine: Jesus, and it was after Judas left that Christ 
instituted the Lord's Supper. So John positively declares 
that Judas was not at the last Su'pjper. 

10. But "David fell and recovered," says Eld. Ditzler. It 
is not true that David apostatized from God's grace, was for 
one moment a child of wrath after he had for the first time 
experienced the blessedness of those whose sins are covered. 
David sinned, repented bitterly, and was forgiven as a fathe^r 
forgives a child ;^e lost the joy, but never his hope of salva- 
tion. 

11. It is true Peter, after his own bitter experience, warns 
his brethren against falling, not from God's favor and the 
grace of salvation, but into sin as he did. And this the true 
children of God are liable to do as our children are liable to 
disobey and offend us; and this is all that is taught in 2 Peter 
i. 9, 10. 

12. Peter, in his Second Epistle, ch. ii. verses 18-25, speaks of 
certain characters who seemed to have professed a change of 
life and knowledge of Christ, and had in a measure reformed 
themselves from many of their sins and cleansed themselves 
of their pollutions, 3^et soon turning back to them so that the 
old proverb was applicaple in their case : 

"The dog is turned to his own vomit again, and the sow 



Final Perseverance. 1173 

that was washed to her wallowing in the mire." The nature of 
neither had never been changed, and there are thousands to- 
day in the church and alas! how many in the pulipt whose 
carnal natures have never been changed, though they profess 
and really seem to have escaped the pollutions of the world 
through the knowledge of Jesus Christ. But their sins will 
find them out, and they become entangled therein and go 
back to their own vomit, and to wallowing in the mire — but 
this cannot be said of Christians, for "they are not of those 
who draw back unto perdition but those who believe to the 
saving of their souls." — Heb. x. 39. 

13. The warnings are addressed to the whole brotherhood of 
the church, lest any might receive the grace, the oifered 
grace in vain ; and the strong and intelligent brother who can 
understand that an idol is nothing, is warned against pursuing 
such a course, -the natural tendency of which would be to lead 
a weak brother into the sin of idolatry and ruin. The ten- 
dency and the result of the unchecked tendency is one matter; 
and to assume that with the instructions and warnings given, 
a true child of God will pursue the tendency to his final ruin, 
is quite another. The faithful warnings miiy be the means 
chosen of God to be the effectual guards against the dangers. 

14. Paul, an inspired a,pd^tle, feared lest he might he a "casta- 
way." 1 Cor. ix. 27. 

Paul never feared any such thing, for we have heard him 
say, " There is now no condemnation to them that are in Christ 
Jesus,"— no possibility of such an one ever coming into con- 
demnation; and he concludes that chapter (Rom. viii.) be- 
ginning with thcTSt declaration, with these words: — 

"Who shall separate us from the lovg of Christ? .s Aa^Z tribulation, or 
oJistress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness^ or perils or sword?" 
" Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that 
loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, 
nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, 
nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature,., shall be al:)le to separate us 
from the love of God, which is in Christ JesuS our Lord." 

And again he says: "For I know whom I have believed, 
and am persuaded that he is able to keep that which I have 
committed unto him against that day." Paul, then, was not 
afraid of being lost^ but his anxiety was to give to others clear 
'pro(^f of his regeneration, by keeping his body under, and 
bringing all his powers, his will and propensities in subjection 
to the law of Christ, lest that, failing to do which, after 
preaching to others he himself would be adokimos, without 
proof that he was what he professed to be. Proofless is all 
tlie term adokirnos means. The new life, good works and holy 



1 1 74 The Great Carrollton Debate. 

living are all the proofs that Christians can furnish to others 
of the realit}' of their professions. 

15. He appeals to Rev. xxii. 19 to prove that an adopted 

child of God may apostatize, and finallj^ perish ; but what 

proof does it afford? It does not intimate that a child of God 

would do such a thing, or would desire to do it, or could be 

tempted to do it. It is not supposable that a true child could 

be so actuated by the very spirit of anti-christ as to desire to 

add to or take from God's word, but it is supposable that 

such an act could be presumed upon by those who think they 

are, and who profess to be Christians. Then, what is the 

force of the expression, " take away his part from the tree of 

life" (for Eld. Ditzler should have known that "book of 

life'' is not in the Greek text; but he, I suppose, does not 

read his Testament in Greek) wdien the person evidently 

never had any real, actual right to the tree of life, or part in 

the hoi}" ^ity, or the rich spiritual blessings described in this 

l)i)ok? This is evidently and certainly a Hebraistic form used 

bv Clirist, and means here precisely what Christ meant in 

Matt. xiii. 12: — 

"For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more 
abundance : but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even 
that he hath." 

This passage seems paradoxical ; but let Christ explain it : — 

" Take heed therefore how ye hear : for w^hosoever hath, to him shall 
be given ; and whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken even that 
which he seemeth to have." — Luke viii. 18. 

It is tantamount to saying, that he shall have no part in the 
things mentioned in this book, nor ever be blessed of God, 
but cursed: and it is a warning that should cause false teachers 
to " exceedingly fear and quake." I defer all further discus- 
sion of this important question to the discussion agreed upon. 

You must all have noticed that Eld. Ditzler has not pro- 
<luced one plain passage that teaches that a child of God ever 
perished, but he has relied solely upon inferences and suppo- 
sitions to establish his doctrine, while I have produced only 
plain, unequivocal passages of Scripture; and I here assure 
you, that neither the laws nor the doctrines of Christianity 
are left to be built upon such a precarious foundation. You 
will be safe and blessed if vou will reject, this day, from vour 
faith and practice every doctrine and every thing you now 
practice for an ordinance or rite of religious duty which you 
cannot find plainly taught in God's w^ord. 

In view of the subject, as far as we have discussed it, of 
Arminians, Baptists can say, "Their Rock is not as our 



Final Perseverance. 1175 

Ruck, oiir oiiemies themselves being judges. " And well we 
may sing, with the spirit and understanding — 

How tirm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord, 
Is laid for your faith in his excellent word ! 
What more can he say than to you he hath said — 
You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled ? 

In every condition — in sickness, in health, 

In poverty's vale, or abounding in wealth, 

At home and abroad, on the land, on the sea. 

As thy days may demand, shall thy strength ever be. 

Fear not ; I am with thee ; O, be not dismayed ; 

I, I am thy God, and will still give thee aid ; 

I'll strengthen thee, help thee, and cause thee to stand, 

Upheld by my righteous, omnipotent hand. 

When through the deep waters I call thee to go, 
The rivers of woe shall not thee overflow ; 
For I will be with thee, thy troubles to bless. 
And sanctify to thee thy deepest distress. 

When through fiery trials thy pathway shall he, 
My grace, all-sufficient, shall be thy supply ; 
The flame shall not hurt thee : I only design 
Thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine. 

Even down to old age, all my people shall prove 
My sovereign, eternal, unchangeable love; 
And when hoary hairs shall their temples adorn, 
Like lambs they shall still in my bosom be borne. 

The soul that on Jesus hath leaned for repose, 
I will not, I will not, desert to his foes ; 
That soul, though all hell should endeavor to shake, 
I'll never, no, never, no, never, forsake. 



THE END. 



INDEX. 



IT77 



Address, on opening debate by 
Col. John B. Hale, President- 9 

Agamemnon — His immersion... 258 
His survival discredits Dr. 
Ditzler's dictum identifying 
immersion with drowning 258 

Alford Dean — Changeable and 
mdij change again yet 240 

^^Amad^^ — Its import in Syriac 386 
and again, on p 465 
To immerse only a derivative 

meaning of 467 

Eminent Lexicographers cited 
who define it — " ^o imm^erse, 

to dip:' 387 

Dr. Gotchon 388 

How used in early Christian 

writings 390 

That it means to immerse is 
proved by the present practice 
of the Nestorians who im- 
merse ...7 391 

What are, or are not its Greek 

equivalents 407 

Aquinas and the Mediseval 
schoolmen no authorities in 
philology 31 

Apostacy, the fatal — Of a true 

child of God, possible 1118 

The Word of God precludes 
the bare supposition 1132 

Assertion on, that is astounding 154 

Autem surreptitiously dropped 
from, "m hac autem. signijica- 
tione.'"' 453 

Authorities — Dr. Ditzler's cita- 
tions from not to be depended 

on 293, 483 

Dr. Graves' presentation of, 
inaccurate 294 

Baptism — Scripturally admin- 
istered only by Baptists 20 

Nothing in its meaning to 

countenance immersion 70 

Importance of a right observ- 
ance of. Instituted in language 

easy to be understood 15 

"Buried in," interpreted as 
signifying immersion by Wes- 
ley, and by Conybeare and 
Howson, and by Moses Stu- ' 

art ■ 77, 113 

No ambiguity in the law of... 142 
Proselyte — in dark ages hj 

immersion .". 123 

No authority for infant bap- 
tism 666 

By a single immersion not till 

fourth century 123 

By a single immersion the 



practice of the Apostles 132 

There is a, that incorporates a, 

man in Christ 121 

The rite that unites a mian 

with the church 130 

Of the Holy Spirit occurred 

but twice 131 

Paul's one, not water baptism 144 

Facilities for in Jerusalem 178 

Of the Eunuch 179 

Calvin and Dodridge on 180 

Of Lydia and the Philippian 

Jailer 181 

Administered to Gentiles as a 
condition of participation in 

Jewish privileges 659 

Administered by Christ and 
his Apostles to believers only.. 733 
Citations from ancient Fath- 
ers show that in early centu- 
ries it was by sprinkling or 

pouring. 247 

Immersion as a mode of, ad- 
opted from superstitious mo- 
tives 243 

Chrysostom a washing 247 

Of John, only on a profession 

of repentance 717 

Not administered to infants... 718 
Must precede church member- 
ship 813 

Must precede the observance 

ofthe Supper 815 

Validity of, dependent on the 
character of the church, not 

the administrator 845 

Valid, impracticable on Bap- 
tist principles 867 

A prerequisite to the Lord's 
Supper as is shown by eminent 
Pedobaptist writers 874 

Baptist Churches — Founded in 
the same way the Methodist 
Churches were 945 

Baptists — None are truly bap- 
tized '. 42, 835 

Therefore not warranted in 
administering the Lord's Sup- 
per 835 

The earlv origin of, well at- 
tested. ...'1 842 

Not descended from the Mun- 

sterites 844 

Opposed to the Reformation... 853 

Are bungling philologists 51 

Did not derive their baptism 

from John Smyth 894 

Deal unfairly with their auth- 
orities 331 

The Texas, quite in a charac- 



iiyS 



INDEX. 



teristic mann er grossly niisrep- 



reseiitvid, Dr. iJi:zlei'. 



883 
A general arraignment of, as 

(1) Perverters of the Bible... 

(2) Falsifiers of history 

(3) Obstructors of the Refor- 
mation 886 

The scholarship of the world 

condemns the 61 

A failure till Methodism came 
to the rescue 869 

Baptized — Translated sprinkled 
in Vatican and Sinait. MSS., 
and by Euthymius 107 

Barnabas — A writer of uncertain 
d ate, and of q ii e s t i o n a b 1 e 
credit 454 

Bethany — Not Bethabara, was 
where John baptized 102 

Bible — The translators of King 

James' version of the 46 

How en is translated in the 46, 61 
The translators of, defended... 53 

Burial — The only adequate em- 
blem of death! 76, 116 

Does not imply a covering 101 

125, 199. 

Baptidzo — That it means to im- 
merse, is conceded by all the 
divines of the Latin and Greek 
church — The reproach of any 
discussion about so plain a 
matter, belongs to modern 
Protestant contro versi a 1 i s t s 

exclusively.. 17 

Calvin concedes that it means 

to immerse 19 

Luther makes a like conces- 
sion 20, 175 

Never came to mean dip, un- 
til B. G. 165 33 

Applied wliere the water 

comes over 39 

Its Shemitic equivalents show 

it means sprinlde 41 

Meaning of, easily determined 44 
Has not diverse significations. 45 

and again, on p. 359. 
Its primary not its current 

meaning 49 

Breeho its equivalent... 50 

The first example of its use 

occurs in Pindar 51 

Examples from other autliors 

exhibiting its clas-sical use 52 

Aristotle 54 

Resmne of argument to prove 
it never means primarily to 

immerse ..! 55 

Conceded by Baptists that it 



rarely means immerse 70 

Prhnary meaning of, to .sprin- 
kle 72 

and again on p. 73, 128. 
This attested by a numbei* of 
eminent scholars 144 

and again, on p. 449. 
Til is attested by a number to 
immerse -. 77 

and again, on p 482. 
Pindar does not use, in sense 

of to dip 100 

Not the equivalent of immergo 101 
Its meaning in the commision 
ea.sy to be understood..... '-%.... 135 
Dr Ditzler's position in regard 

to, absurd 134 

A modal term 137 

To obscure this term, is to < on- 
fuse the obligations of obedi- 
ence 138 

Its equivalents in Syriac 273 

and again, on pp. 152, 197, 146 
Its equivalents as defined by 
Castell, by Oberleitner and 

Carafugo 147 

Its equivalents in Arabic 151 

and again, on p 198, 

Its equivalents inChaldee 151 

Its equivalents in Hebrew 172, 444 
Cannot have diverse mean- 
ings in scripture 164 

In Greek literature before 

Christ occurs 33 times 166 

Dean Alford on meaning 166 

Its classical meanings 171 

Has a great varietv of mean- 
ings....' .'. 193 

Translcited thigo by Latin 

Fatliers 107 

No example can be adduced in 
which it means to sprinkle 

upon 214 

Never occurs in the sense of 
to dip 220 

and again, on p 453. 
Examples of, cited by Conant 

examined. • 220 

Beza on 224 

As defined by learned authori- 
ties • 2.?/'. hS3 

Julianus (iefiues to sprinkle 112 
Tertullian likewise. •• ...... -:.42 

Eminent Lexicographers cited 

as so definingit : 373 

Curtius derives it from athos. 253 
Not interchangeable with 

brecho • 257 

Exami)les of its classic use 
wliere immersion is clearlv in- 



INDEX. 



II79 



dicated 259 

Figurative uses of, confirma- 
toiy of the correctness of Bap- 
tist practice 263 

The import of classical exam- 
ples cited 268 

Has a Hebrew equivalent 

meaning to purify 269 

Examples of, from Greek clas- 
sics mistranslated by Dr. Ditz- 

ler 288 

Its root — bapto and this only 

rarely means to dip 299 307 

Reluctant witnesses concede 
it means to immerse always .. 809 
That it means drown in case 
of a living animal proved ab- 
surd 318 

Leigh and Schleusner's testi- 
mony in regard to its mean- 
ing falsified by Dr. Ditzler... ... 345 

A faise presentation of author- 
ities on 362 

Its significance in New Testa- 
ment contrasted with its use 

in the classics 371 

Its first occurrence in a literal 

sense 397 

And patakluzo used in same 

sense by Aristotle 398 

From its Hebrew and Latin 
equivalent shown to signify 

aspersions 444 

Tabal, the Hebrew equivalent 
of, shown to mean primarily 

sprinkle^ moisten 445 

The metaphorical sense as- 
cribed to it by Schleusner, 
proves it to mean "to pour 

out" : 454 

Mode Of — A modern c o n t r o- 

versy 18 

Unless in regard to an excep- 
tional proceeding in the case 

of "climes" 18 

Indicated by the descent of 

the Holy Ghost 91 

Authorities for determining... 
(1) Lexicons. (2) The origin- 
al scriptures (3) Ancient ver- 
sions of scriptures 25 

Illustrated by the force of 

part en 60 

and by dative of element in 
which., without a preposition- 60 
Scripture phrases illustrating 
"Buried by baptism,'' Rom. 
vi, 4, pp 75, 182 
" Buried in baptism," Col. ii, 
12, pp 146, 182 



"Planted together in likeness 

of his death" 170 

"Buried in," interpreted of 

immersion by Wesley 77 

and other eminent Theolo- 
gians, pp. 154, 184. 
"Buried by baptism," Rom. 
vi. 4, pp. 72, 182. 
''Buried by baptism" does 

not refer to water baptism 122 

" Buried by baptism," an evi- 
dent allusion to water bap- 
tism c 131 

" Buried by baptism," Ewing 

on 131 

" Buried by baptism," has no 
reference to proselyte baptism 132 
"Buried by baptism," as ex- 
pounded iby Beza, Vossius. 132 

Witsius and Suieer on 133 

"Buried by baptism," Cony- 
beare and Howson and Mo- 
ses Stuart on T: 113 

Born of Water and Spirit," 

John iii, 5 explained, 685 

Buried in baptism," Col ii, 
12, pp. 146, 182 

Interpreted of, immersion by 
Wesley and other eminent 

Theologians 77 

also, on pp. 117, 120, 154, 184. 
Planted together in the like- 
ness of Ills death," Rom. vi, 5. 170 
Baptized for the dead," 1 Cor. 

XV, 29... 182 

Eminent Methodist divines 

refer it to water baptism 184 

Our bodies washed in pure 
water," refers to Christian 

baptism 186 

In Jordan," eis ton Jordanen., 

Marki, 9 114 

Divers baptisms," a reference 
to immersion for various cere- 
monial pollutions 189 

Alting and Kitto on 190 

Is immersion only.... 139 

" " " a Philological 

argument in proof — 142 

Eminent Pedobaptists divines 

affirm 155 

Greek classics prove it 207 

If by iDouriug, Christ would 

have said so 142 

If immersion then, it is drown- 
ing.. 133 

Early Greek Fathers on 229 

Latin Fathers on 230 

That immersion is the scrip- 
tural — the practice of Greek 



ii8o 



INDEX. 



strongly confirms 810 

Historic testimony in regard 
to 416 

Apostolic and post-Apostolic 

testimony regarding 418 

Testimony of Eastern or Greek 
church historians regarding... 419 
Testimony of Western or 
Latin Catholic church histo- 
rians regarding 421 

Testimony oi Anglican or 
EpiseoiDal church regarding .. 422 
Testimony of Lutheran 

church regarding 426 

A brief review of debate on 

pages 501-5 

Testimony of Presbyterian 

historians on 506 

Testimony of Congregational 

historians on 508 

Testimony of Methodist his- 
torians on 508 

Testimony of Cyciopsedias on 510 
Testimony of most eminent 

Pedobaptists on 512 

Conjoint testimony of the 
Fathers of the Reformation 

and of Methodism on 515 

Concessions of 22 eminent 
Presbyterian scholars and 

commentators on 517 

Recapitulation of argument 
on 533, 556, 521 

Baptism — Of Christ an immer- 
sion 58 

and again, on pp 62, 74. 

Baptism , Prosel^^te — Unknown 
for centuries subsequent to the 

Christian era 772 

Had been practiced from daj^s 

of Moses 786 

No Jew, with his children, 

ever submitted to it 801 

Gives no support to infant 
baptism 802 

Baptism, Infant — Indisc r i m i- 
nately administered to all 

infants by Methodists 576 

Held by Methodists to be a 

means of grace 576 

As held by Methodists, admits 

infants into the church. 576 

No scriptural authority for 576 

The advocates of, can give no 
divine authority for their 
practice 577 

Bapto — Origen and Hippolytus, 
both render it by sprinkle, &c. 329 
A philological argument to 
show it does not mean to dip 333 



Calumny — A gratuitous, resent- 
ed 

Camp Meeting. — Round Lake — 
why held there 

Canon. — Dr. George Campbell's 

maintained 214, 234, 319, 

Examined and rejected 

Illustrated and vindicated 

Never sanctioned by scholars 
Sustained by the Peshito 

Carrollton. — The Great, Debate. 
Hist of 

Chemistrj^ — Philological 

Child — The baptized, will have 
holy thoughts when it rains... 

Children — Thehttle whom Jesus 
blessed were not baptized 

Circumcision — W hat some 
c 1 e a r-headed Presbyterians 
say about its relation to bap- 
tism 

Clark, John — never was dipped 

Clemens Alexandrinus — a tale 
related by, shows him to have 
regarded baptism as suffus- 
ion 

Commission, Christ's — L a s t, 

couched in simiDle terms 

Can only be misinterpreted by 

a perverse ingeiiuity 

Terms of, to be literally con- 
strued 

Cannot be misunderstood by 

the unlearned 

Is the only law for Christian 

baptism 

Utterly ignored by Dr. Ditzler 
Dean Alford says, was not 
couched in figurative or am- 
biguous terms 

Not couched in figurative lan- 
guage 

Does not authorize but forbids 

infant baptism 

Authoriz;es the baj)tism of in- 
fants 

Conant, Dr. — Vineiicated as a 

scholai and critic 236, 

Commission did not establish 
baptism de novo 

Controversy ( Religious ) — P r o- 
motive of the interests of 

truth 

Dr Ralph Wardlaw on 

Dr. J. Buchanan on 

Dr. J Cummin on 

Creed of the Methodists — to be 
found not in the "ritual" but 
in the ''articles of religion"... 

Critics — Crazy 



673 

109 

356 
324 
360 
872 
494 

8 
78 

616 

735 



634 

884 



247 

136 
136 
188 
139 

159 

648 

161 
214 

736 
768 
261 

849 



707 

78 



INEDX. 



I181 



Church — Spirituahty of not im- 
paired by an ungoldly mem- 
bership 643 

A Jewish, never existed 654 

The, as an "institution" must 
owe its origin to a law estab- 
lishing it. 656 

Consists of all God's people in 

all time 554 

One and identical through all 

ages 596 

Infants have ever been mem- 
bers of.. • 598 

Inlants made members of the 

Jewish by baptism « 598 

The Jewish wt.s spiritual o. 560 

Had only two ordinances, bap- 
tism and the Lord's supper... 641 
The M. E. does not answer to 
its own definition of a Church 584 
Relation of a local, to the uni- 
versal or invisible church 620 

The oneness of, results from , 
the oneness of the covenant of 

redemption 621 

No traces of it in the families 

of Isaac or .Jacob 654 

Church Identity — Dr Ditzler's 
theory of, subversive of the 

church's purity ..... •• 631 

Not affected by ritualistic 

<,'hanges... 641 

Proved not by analogy but 

facts attesting oneness 644 

The principle of, leads to most 

disastrous results 676 

Disowned and rejected by dis- 
tinguished advocates of infant 

baptism .- - 676 

A logical refutation of 679 

Proved by Christ recognizing 
and reforming the Jewish ...-. 705 
By the Apostles doing the 

;same ..-. 707 

Practice of c i r c u m c i s i o n 
through the whole apostolic 

age ..- -..-^. 710 

Disproved by the discrimina- 
tive chara^cter of John's minis- 
try and baptism.......... 713, 719 

By the hostility of the Jews 

to the church of Christ. 720 

By the fact that adult children 
have no hereditary claim to 

baptism under the Gospel 720 

Argument for re-affirmed and 

restated 787 

To deny involves the wildest 
absurdities 831 

Churches — Baptist— The true 



churches of Christ 841 

The antiquity of 842 

Identified with Wickliffites & 

Waldensee 843 

A failure till Methodism in- 
fused scriptural life into them 886 

Church of Christ.— Only tlie 

Jewish institution purified 684 

Its origin clearly j)ointed out.. 797 
Its oneness set forth in the 

supper - 819 

Its oneness, all are baptized 

into ..« 819 

What constitutes the, can on- 
ly be learned from the New 

Testament 586 

By confounding the, with the 
"invisible" church, Dr. Ditz- 
ler shirks the issue in debate... G49 
An indefensible hypothesis re- 
garding 591 

Identified with the good olive 

tree — -. - 594 

The ordinances and laws of, 
can liave no appositeness to 
that aggregation Dr Ditzler 
identifies with Christ's cliurch 605 
No traces of it under former 

dispensations 609 

No traces of it in the family 
of Abraham .. 630 

Covenants. — Tiie two represent- 
ed by Hagar an d Sara] \ 624 

Dr. Ditzler's reluctance to . 
abide by concessions made in 

regard to 771 

Of Grace, not made with 

man-- 668 

With Abraham distinct from . 
covenant of grace..... 670 

Debate— Baptists of Carrollton 
challenged to, bv Methodists 

of that city '. 11 

This, but the continuation of 
an ancient conflict = 12 

Dip — Greek terms for.... 171 

"Discipline"^The Methodist, in 
eonfiict with Dr Ditzler's the- 
ory of infant parity ...- 006 

A false construction put upon. 766 

Discretion — None permitted to 
m ai i in matters in vol ving obe- 
dience to Christ 12 

Discussion, (oral) — The chief 
mode of advancing knowledge 

known to the ancients 5 

An important means of ad- 
vancing religious truth 6 

Value of, exemplified in the 
life and writings of PauL. ..... 7 



Il82 



INDEX. 



Doiiatists — They were the first 
professed Christians that in- 
voked the civil arm in behalf 
of religion 853 

Drisler, Prof H.— A letter from, 
gi^dng history of Amer. Ed. 
of Liddell & Scott's Lexicon.. 494 

jEkklesia—Thot Greek, may serve 
to elucidate the character of 

a Chm'ch of Christ 586 

The term must be interj^reted 
by its Jewish, not its clsssic 
import 646 

Enon — Whv John baptized 
there. T. 69, 100 

ExoJiraim — Cyrus 465 

Essence — Not independent o f 
form, where a specific act is 
commanded to be done — white 
pine and Gopher wood 19 

Eunuch — The confession of, a 
forgery 682 

E^ddenee — When most valuable 113 

Fathers— They use tingo for bap- 
tism genera'113^, without mdi- 
cating mode... 405 

Faith — A viciirious, may qualify 
for baptism 763 

Graves, Dr — in a new 'role as a 
defender of the Discipline 807 

Greek Church — Repudiated the 
baptism of the Latin or Ro- 
mish church, and practice on- 
ly immersion 18, 310, 312, 344 

Does not invariably immerse 326 
Its degeneracy destroys an 
argument based on its prac- 
tice. ..„ , .. 326 

Greek Language — LnckTstood 
by Christ and liis Apostles... 189 
also, on p. 384. 

Is understood by the Greeks 320 
Tlie true meaning of an exam- 
ple in tlie, ccmtested. 341 

Of the New Testament, differ- 
ent from that of the classic 
authors.... 371 

Greek prepositions in dispute — 
eis, 67, 86, 89, 91, 95, 99, 100, 
284, 340. 

ek ...67, 90 

ejn 67, 90, 91 

apo 90,169, 284 

en .90, 91, 99, 127, 290 

" primary meaning of in 340 

" Harvey, Rev. James, on... 94 
" governing date of instru- 
ment 339 

Greek Syntax — A principle of, 
of vital importance in deter- 



mming the meaning of bap- 
tizo 290 

Hawks— Or owls, all one to Dr. 

Ditzler ,. 901 

Hernias — A dreamer 455 

Hic^ hcec^ hoc, in dispute 453 

" " "a quaternity of 
Methodist scholars stand readj^ 
to avouch the orthodoxy of 
this pronominal trinity 451 

Historians and critics to be test- 
ed by their original authori- 
ties..'. 534 

Households — hard to find 
eight average, without an in- 
fant in one or more 765 

"Immerse" — Defined by Web- 
ster 162 

Immersion on — The one 182 

" *' no authority 
for as baptism 330 

Infants— Not born free from the 

taint of original sin 606 

Morally qualified for church 

membership 639 

The right of, to baptism and 
church privileges fully estab- 
lished 743 

None in the church at Rome.. 759 
" " '' '< Corinth 759 

None in all the churches of 

Galatia 761 

None in the church at Colosse 775 
None in the churches ad- 
dressed in Epistle to Hebrews 775 
None in the churches ad- 
dressed in two Epistles of 

Peter 777 

Interpretation— Rules of, 21, 22, 23 
" " Blackstone on 14l> 

John, (Baptist) — Places of his 
baptism determine nothing as 

to its mode ...•■ 82 

Are conchisive as to the act 

performed. 96 

Pedobaptist testimony on this 

point... '. 96 

Mentions three baptism s 97 

His preaching was of a low or- 
der...... 683 

His occupation such as Apos- 
tles would not come down to.. 683 
Baptized only unto a pros- 
pective repentance 683 

Baptized a scurvey set of ig- 

I norant candidates 683 

I Merelv cleared away the 

I brush!: 683 

j Language — Baptists hold that 
use is the sole arbiter of.....-- 32 



INDEX. 



I183 



Law of the interpretation of.. 137, 

Lexicon — Merits of Liddell & 

Scott/s, canvassed 402, 494 

Citations from tStokius' siiow- 
ing that "to dip," "to im- 
merse," is the Uteral meaning 
of baptizo - 413 

Lexicographers, Greek — Twen- 
ty-seven of the most distin- 
guished enumerated.. 27 

Not scientific in their method 33 
Six eminent ones on baptidzo 87 
Dr. Graves' favorite, do not 
sustain him 200 

Lexicons — Prof. Toy cited on 

vakie of 280 

Definitions of baptizo by more 
than "thirty of the most re- 
nowned 281 

All sustain Dr. Ditzler, and 

are against Dr. Graves 468 

A reaffirmation of how they 

deOLiie baptizo 296 

The testimony of all, in favor 

of immersion as baptism 308 

Previous renderings of their 

definitions vindicated 312 

That of Liddell & tScott, has 
an instructive and significant 

history 316 

Forty standard Greek, define 
baptizo by "to immerse," or 
"to dip," as its primary mean- 
ing 320 

Liddell & Scott's, a "school- 
boy" afJair, and of little ac- 
count..... 332 

All made by immersionists 
from the revival of Greek 
learning in the West to this 

day.... 336 

Of N. T. Greek, by eminent 
scholars define baptizo by to 

"immerse, dip," &c 351 

Preponderance of their au- 
thority in favor of sprinkling. 395 

Lord's Supper — The, a Mosaic 

institution 640 

To be observed in the church- 
es of Christ 809 

Cannot precede baptism ...811, 815 
Impossible conditions for par- 
taking of, imposed by Dr. 

Graves 823 

A modification of the Paschal 

feast 830 

Baptism not a prerequisite to 832 
Distinct from the Paschal feast 846 
Not properly restricted t o 



those in the Church 850 

Regeneration a qualification 

for 857 

Each local church the guardi- 
an of 859, 862 

Its purity carefully guarded 

by the Apostolic churches 864 

A converting ordinance accor- 
ding to the Methodist scheme 865 
Has no pre-eminence in sanc- 
tity over other commands of 
Christ 869 

Methodists. — The first people to 
teach the salvation of infants. 663 

Munsterites — Were sprinklers... 890 

New Testament. — Syriac, yields 
no countenance to sprinkling 
or pouring as a mode of bap- 
tism 392 

Open Communionists. — T h e 
most eminent Baptists have 
been 871 

Passover. — Who should be invi- 
ted to, a matter of prescription 861 
A family, not a national ordi- 
nance 860 

Patience— of the people — A sin- 
gular mode of testing it 14 

Planting — Does not always im- 
ply covering over 125 

Peace. — As against Baptist ag- 
gression, Methodists intend to 
conquer one 885 

Pedo-baptism — Involves the ab- 
surdity of two baptism s 635 

Peshito. — The Syriac written in 
the vernacular of Christ and 

his apostles.. 145 

Clearly teaches that aspersion 

is baptism 202 

A transcript of Christ's utter- 
ances 240 

An indispensable interpreter 
of the Greek N. T 240 

Philological Tested. — Dr Ditz- 

ler's tested 57-8, 256 

Theories 79 

Puerilities exposed 192 

Dr. Graves tested 193, 341 

Facts collated and held to sus- 
tain affusion as a mode of 
baptism 399 

Philologists. -The old school 

not sciantific 224 

"Sustain sprinkle" 224 

A quaternity of, ready to 
pledge hic^ hoee^ hoc in the in- 
terest of Methodist orthodoxy 452 

Philology. — Erroneous, Hebrew 
exposed 263 



ii84 



INDEX. 



A superficial exposed 298 

Empirical and scientific con- 
trasted 227 

Hebrew, as represented by 
Maimonides and Gesenius, fa- 
vor sprinkling as the mode of 

baptism ^. 88 

The "new-born" excepted 

against 233 

Two grand discoveries in, 
made contemporaneously by 
Faust in Germany and Ditz- 

ler in America 447 

All in favor of Dr. Ditzlerand 
adverse to Dr. Graves .. 471 

Purifications. — C e r e m o n i al, 
when expressed by taval al- 

waj'S by immersion 113 

Maimonides on 113 

Never by immersion 127 

By washing 173 

Saints — Old Testament, unwor- 
thily disparaged by Dr. 
Graves \ 664 

8eptuagint, The — Its value in 
determining the meaning of 
Greek terms 380 

Scriptures ISTo example in an- 
cient versions of where baptizo 
is rendered by sprinkle or 

pour 320 

Oriental versions of, sustain 
''to dip," "to immerse," as the 

meaning of baptizo 474 

Siloam not a washing pool 464 

Value of ancient versions of, 
in determining the meaning 
of the originals 145, 377 

"Sprinkle,"— Defined bv AVeb- 

ster ": 162 

Sprinkle or pour a man im- 
possible 163 

Scriptures — Of the Old Testa- 
men t, two versions of, in 
Greek made early in (Christian 
Era invariably translate taval 
by bapto or haptidzo 383 

Succession — Baptist, a myth. 827, 868 
Invalidated by notorious facts 855 

Syllogisms~Dr. Graves' not con- 
clusive 617 

Syriac Tongue — The vei'nacular 
of Christ and contemporary 

Jews 240, 462 

Greater part of New Testa- 
ment written in, according to 
Pres. Stiles of Yale College ... 240 

Tabal — In Hebrew, is translated 
by bapto^ yet never means 
immerse 327, 458 



Means "wash" 460 

Never translated by baptizo... 461 
The literal meaning of "to 
dip," "to immerse" 487 

Terms — Primary meani n g of 
what 266, .256 

Tertullian — His Latin equiva- 
lents for baptizo 497 

Misinterpreted by Dr. Graves. 455 

Testimony — That of Barnabas 
and Hernias trustworthy 485 

Theocracy — The history of the 

Jewish, epitomized 674 

The Jewish, not a Christian 
church 675 

Tlngo — Used by the Fathers as 

a generic term for baptism 405 

Used by the Latin Fathers in 
a modal sense, and expressive 

of dipping 429, 437 

The Fathers and the lexicons 
show it to be used in the sense 

of aspersion 438 

Fort, Dr. Ditzler's vields to 
the first shot T. 474 

Translators — Of King James' 
version of the Scriptures, im- 
mersionists 64 

Transubstantiation — jNI a t c h e d 
in the perversion of the Lord's 
Supper by Methodists 865 

Truth — Advanced by discussion 5 

Tyndale — An immersionist 63 

Water Running — A necessity to 

a Jewish multi tude 109 

Plenty of, necessary for John. 112 
Plenty of, necessary for camp 

meetings 109, 116 

A symbol of purity and of the 
outpouring of the Spirit 616 

Wall— In History of Inf Bap 
seeks to conciliate Baptists for 
sinister purposes 500 

Wesley — A spurious edition of 
his "Notes on the Gospel" put 

in circulation 486 

"Weslev's Tract" not written 

by Wesley 663 

Has the imprimatur of the 
Methodist Book concern 672 

Wheel Church — The, has no 
counterpart in the New Testa- 
ment 992 

Williams, Roger — Never was a 
Baptist 845 

Words — Primary meaning of 128, 
287. 

Zion, jNIount — As opposed to 
Mount Sinai in Heb xii, re- 
fers to the gospel church, 625, 630 



3350 



;^ 



.^ 



^" 







''^^i''- 






^ « » 



.^ 






5^ *^ o mOI 






'^:^ 




♦ r 



,H^ 










•e^ ^'TT**" <0' 



o 






.-^^^^ 




.c 




V* ♦••-•' 



♦ S ^. o 




r .. 


















' .* • 




























hO 



»■ *« 















9 



o iP "TV 




^* ^o-«^ '^ 




0" ^^ **«,,• ^ 







♦ «? "vi^, "vJIaf* av "^ •©US* «? '^. 



WERT 

BOOKBISDtNC 

middlEtown, pa 




---^o* 




